Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DERWENT VALLEY RAILWAY BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 20 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Inflation

Mr. Greenway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the average annual rate of inflation for 1979 to 1982 compared with 1974 to 1977.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Leon Brittan): The average annual rate of inflation between May 1979 and May 1982 was 14·2 per cent. From February 1974 to February 1977 the averge annual rate of inflation was 19·6 per cent.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those figures speak volumes for the value of a Conservative Government as against a Socialist Government? What effects will that have on Britain's future and its position in the world?

Mr. Brittan: The continued fall in inflation is the biggest single contribution that we can make towards sustained recovery. It will improve our competitiveness and the prospect of lower interest rates.

Mr. Egger: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, but will he confirm that if we are to sustain the fall, not only in inflation but in interest rates, it is essential that the Government do everything in their power to limit increases in public sector wages?

Mr. Brittan: I readily confirm that.

Mr. Flannery: In his last answer the Chief Secretary mentioned the continued fall in inflation, but he neglected to mention the catastrophic rise in unemployment. Will he tell us something about that?

Mr. Brittan: When I am asked I will—

Mr. Flannery: I am asking.

Mr. Brittan: There is no shortage of questions on unemployment on the Order Paper. This question is about inflation.

Recession (Economic Indications)

Mr. Deakins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what indicators now lead him to believe that the recession is ending.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Industrial production in the three months to May was about 3 per cent. higher than in the spring of last year. The prospect is for further gradual recovery. This is supported, for example, by the central statistical office's index of leading cyclical indicators, and by most recent independent forecasts.

Mr. Deakins: Are there any signs of increased job opportunities in British industry to combat the present disastrous levels of unemployment?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are two foundations upon which the prospects of improved employment are to be built. One is the continued success against inflation, and the second is the improvement in output that is likely to follow that. All our policies are directed to that end.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the Chancellor aware that his own central statistical office states that the figures to May are incomplete until we have the June figures, partly because of this year's exceptional incidence of the spring bank holiday and, secondly, because of the frenzied industrial activity due to the Falklands crisis?
With regard to the ending of the recession, what is the Chancellor's reaction to the recent surge in imports due to the sabotaging of the home industrial sector?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree that the surge in imports is to be regretted. That is a consequence of the continued lack of competitiveness of Britain's economy, which has nevertheless made substantial improvements in recent months. It is also aggravated by continued examples of industrial unrest.
It is because the figures for one month are not representative that. I founded my answer on industrial production in the three months to May, which was 3 per cent. higher than it was in the spring of last year.

Mr. Rippon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the record number of bankruptcies in the first six months of this year, mostly among small businesses and largely due to high interest rates, suggests that the recession is ending?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's anxiety about the record level of bankruptcies, which is not confined to this country. He rightly draws attention to the importance of lower interest rates in improving prospects for small businesses as well as others. As a result of the Government's economic policies interest rates are now 4 per cent. lower than at the end of last year.

Mr. Straw: On 30 July 1981 the Chancellor of the Exchequer told an incredulous House that the recession was at an end. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the past 12 months—not three months—manufacturing production slumped still further and has only recently returned to the level of last July? With the right hon. and learned Gentleman's track record of predictions, the House and the country would do far better to take notice of people such as the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside CBI, who last Saturday said that the economy was as dead as a dodo.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be right to take that view of the economy. Economic growth in Britain, as in every country, is still slow and hesitant. Economic growth in some European countries is static or negative. However, the OECD, which is an international observer of the scene, stated in its most recent forecast that output growth in Britain is likely to be about 1¼ per cent. this year and slightly higher than that next year. That is close to our forecast, and it is one that is confirmed by the majority of independent outside forecasts. What is more important is that the OECD's forecast represents an upward revision of its earlier forecast at the end of last year.

Unemployment

Mr. Parry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects his policies to result in a fall in unemployment.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the effect of his policies on unemployment.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Employment prospects should improve as inflation comes down and our competitiveness improves. The Government have done much to alleviate the impact of unemployment on particularly vulnerable groups such as school leavers. As is usual, I make no forecast about future employment levels.

Mr. Parry: Does the Minister agree that the real level of unemployment is more than 4 million and that the Government's policies are not working, despite their attacks on trade unions, the unemployed, the sick and disabled and others? When will the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduce measures drastically to reduce unemployment?

Mr. Hayhoe: Our policies are working. Inflation is falling and competitiveness is improving. These two factors together provide the best hopes of improvement.

Mr. Canavan: When will Ministers stop spreading the rubbish that high wage demands cause high unemployment when the truth is that we have one of the lowest wage economies combined with the highest rate of unemployment in Western Europe? Surely it is about time that the Government started to take action against unscrupulous employers such as Murdoch and Co. in Kilsyth in my constituency, which seems to be involved in some shady sort of asset stripping while making redundant the entire work force, the average take-home pay of which is less than £50 a week?

Mr. Hayhoe: When high wage rises lead to decreased competitiveness in British industry, fewer people buy British goods and that leads to a loss of jobs. Higher wage increases this year will lead to the export of jobs rather than the export of goods.

Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main reasons for high unemployment lies in past excessive wages claims without increased productivity, leading consequently to a loss of competitiveness in export markets and in the home market? Does he accept that a second main reason lies in the irresponsible strikes that we have suffered in the past and especially the one that we are suffering now with ASLEF, which will lead to even higher unemployment because of the irresponsible attitude of the leaders of ASLEF?

Mr. William Hamilton: Pompous man.

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I hope that all who can bring some influence to bear will bring it to bear upon ASLEF leaders in asking them to call off a damaging and unnecessary strike.

Mr. Shore: The Minister was asked the simple question "When does he expect the level of unemployment to fall?". The simple and obvious answer is that he has no such expectation. Not one forecast available to the Government, or others outside, predicts any fall in unemployment over the next three years. Are we not faced with a stubborn, instransigent and insensitive Government who are planning on the basis of at least 3 million unemployed from now until the next election and beyond?

Mr. Hayhoe: It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. I said—this was customary with the Government of which he was a member as well as with this Administration—that I do not make estimates of future levels of employment.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to reduce unemployment would be to remove the discriminatory hire purchase restrictions on motor cars? The motor industry forecasts that if that were done another 70,000 or 80,000 cars would be sold, which would obviously help to reduce unemployment.

Mr. Hayhoe: I know that this matter is being actively promoted and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken note of my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister agree that the honest answer is that, with the range of current policies, there is no way in which the level of unemployment will be less than 3 million in the foreseeable future? Do the Government accept that? If not, what do they intend to do about it?

Mr. Hayhoe: The honest assessment is that we shall succeed only by reducing inflation and by making industry more competitive. If there are to be more jobs, more people at home and abroad must buy British goods and use British services, and these will have to be of the right price and the right quality.

Overseas Investment

Mr. Hooley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the increase in overseas investment since the abolition of exchange controls has had any effect upon the level of (a) industrial and (b) other investment in the United Kingdom.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne): I know of no evidence to show that the abolition of exchange controls has had a quantifiable effect on investment in the United Kingdom. But, if anything, it might have led to an increase in investment, particularly in sectors exposed to international trade, by keeping the sterling exchange rate from rising in 1980–81 as much as it would otherwise have done.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that since the Government took office £10 billion worth of valuable capital has gone overseas, that the rate is now £4 billion a year and that since exchange controls were abolished industrial investment in the United Kingdom has slumped by 20 per cent? Is the hon. Gentleman not the slightest bit worried about these figures?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has watched what has been happening to business investment in the United Kingdom, which has held up remarkably well to output. The latest Department of Industry investment intentions survey foresees a modest rise in investment in 1982, which will increase in 1983. I remind the House that much investment overseas helps to build links between companies in the United Kingdom and overseas and thereby helps United Kingdom exports.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If we continue to have a large surplus on our current payments, is it not inevitable that we must have a corresponding outward investment?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The alternative to the outflow of productive investment overseas would be the accumulation of reserves, which would reflect official investment in under-pinning the PSBRs of other countries. I doubt whether that would be a more sensible use of our resources.

Sir Albert Costain: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the Public Accounts Committee's examination of the heavy losses incurred by Rolls-Royce, witnesses observed that the losses would not have been suffered and the company would not have found itself in financial trouble were it not for exchange controls, which stopped the company buying dollars forward? Surely that is a good example of how exchange controls have caused unemployment?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend is right. There is no doubt that exchange controls were ineffective in insulating the United Kingdom from the judgment of the market place on the performance of successive Governments. Among other things, they implied distortions of trade and payments, such as those to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mr. Cook: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that since the Government came into power capital has been flooding out of Britain, for whatever reason, at twice the previous rate? Is he aware that in the first year after the abolition of exchange controls, 22 per cent. of direct British investment went abroad, compared with 4 per cent. in the United States, 2·5 per cent., in Germany and 0·6 per cent. in Japan? Can he not see that those figures show one of the reasons for the decline in British manufacturing industry? Can he not grasp the fact that unless we check the flight of capital from Britain we shall not arrest the decline of our manufacturing base?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Britain was entering a period of substantial oil surpluses when the Government took office. As I have already explained to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the alternative to the outflow of capital and private investment account that occurred would have been a build-up of Government holdings of overseas gilt-edged securities, which might have helped the borrowing requirements of other Governments, but it would have been of no long-term benefit to Britain.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why our industrial companies have invested overseas is that they are able to exploit their technological advantages and inventions there and that they are able to supply firms abroad which are not content to rely on one United Kingdom source of supply? Does he agree that that investment protects British jobs and British design?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Incomes

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he foresees a further period of reduction in real incomes.

Mr. Hayhoe: As the Budget forecast showed, a small fall in after-tax real incomes is likely this year. Continued moderation in pay settlements is essential to improve the competitiveness and profitability of industry and so create more jobs for the future.

Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister realise that that cut in spending power can only lead to more company closures and therfore much more unemployment? Does he agree that the cut in spending power means that areas such as Warrington, which were prosperous until the advent of this Government, will be turned into industrial wildernesses?

Mr. Hayhoe: That is why it is necessary to improve the competitiveness of British industry. We shall then be able to sell more goods and services.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the contributory factors to the problem of real incomes in the past 10 or 15 years has been that most people, whether they are good or bad performers, expect and demand an annual wage increase?

Mr. Hayhoe: Widespread expectations of increases in income that are not linked to increases in productivity are a recipe for increased inflation and a fall in real income.

United States Treasury (Meetings)

Mr. Newens: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regular meetings take place between Ministers in his Department and Ministers in the United States Treasury; and in what context they occur.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I meet my American opposite number at the regular meetings in the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank; and at the annual economic summits. We also meet on an ad hoc basis from time to time.

Mr. Newens: What representations has the right hon. and learned Gentleman made at those meetings against the disastrous effects of President Reagan's monetarist madness, high interest rates and now the President's ban on the take-up of contracts for the German-Soviet pipeline? Does he agree that those factors bode ill for economic recovery in Europe, especially in Britain, which is afflicted by the same madness?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Contracts for the Soviet pipeline are a separate issue. It is appropriate to put further questions about it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. With regard to American economic policies, it is important that the American Administration should succeed in their battle against inflation. Firm control of monetary growth, there as here, is an essential part of that. However, it must be supported, there as here, by firm and effective control of the Budget deficit. It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman, who belongs to the party that frequently urges me to expand the Budget deficit in Britain, acknowledges the consequence of a Budget deficit in the United States—that it is too high and that it is one of the main causes of high American interest rates.

Mr. Budgen: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets his colleagues abroad, does he explain to them, as he sometimes does not explain to us, whether he is now controlling the prospective rate of inflation by reference to the money supply or by reference to the sterling exchange rate?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have said often, the Government have no covert or overt target for the sterling exchange rate. Our policies are determined by attention to the rate of monetary growth, exactly as I explained in my last Budget Statement.

Mr. Shore: We agree that the United States, as well as other industrial countries, is suffering, to a greater or lesser extent, from many of the problems that face Britain—especially unemployment and the lack of adequate industrial growth. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the forums in which the principal countries of the Western world discuss matters of major and mutual interest are adequate? Does he agree that the summit of the Seven could be reinforced, in spite of the incredibly disappointing series of recent meetings, including the Versailles summit? Does he agree that that could be done by having meetings of Finance Ministers before the summits take place?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I take the importance of the right hon. Gentleman's point. It is important that Britain should play an important part in international discussions of that type. The summit of the Seven at Versailles addressed itself to that point. As a result of it, discussions are now taking place on those international matters. They follow up a suggestion that I made in a speech to the IMF last year. Perhaps I might respond to the right hon. Gentleman's question by asking him another—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Does he believe that the Budget deficits that are high and rising in the United States are to be deplored, but that those in Britain should not be?

Economic Upturn

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he sees any evidence of an upturn in the economy.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the momentum of recovery in the real economy since the second quarter of 1981 to date.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The turning point was reached in the spring of last year. A gradual recovery has begun and is expected to continue.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the Cambridge economic policy group recently forecast that by 1990 there would be 4¼ million unemployed in Britain? Is he further aware that the same group forecast that by the end of this year—I understand that Sir Terence Beckett agrees—there will be 4 million unemployed? If that is so, does he agree that his economic policies have failed and that he should therefore resign?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that unemployment has been rising steadily for many years under successive Governments. That is happening at the same time as unemployment rates elsewhere are rising even faster. The solution is to be found only in the continued determination to fight inflation, to correct the

balance of the economy, to restore competitiveness and in the economy's capacity to improve its output performance.

Mr. Cormack: How does my right hon. and learned Friend envisage the economy developing in the West Midlands in the next year?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The economy in each region has its own components. That means that patterns will not be identical. However, if the economy as a whole continues to improve as we believe is likely, and if those concerned with production on both sides of industry in the West Midlands apply themselves to improving their own performance, which is the most important factor, I see no reason why the West Midlands should not share the improvement.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Bearing in mind the size of the upturn that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury sees taking place all about us, will the Chancellor undertake to ensure that at the end of his period of office manufacturing output will be higher than it was at the beginning?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is not possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—for anyone in any circumstances to give absolute assurances of that type. The hon. Gentleman is better placed than many hon. Members to appreciate that the extent to which we can succeed in improving economic performance depends on the performance of people in industrial units and companies. If we were able, for example, to improve the performance of the motor industry, a huge demand for motor cars in Britain would be satisfied by British working people.

Mr. Cadbury: Did my right hon. and learned Friend see the recent article by Samuel Brittan arguing that some fiscal stimulus could be given to the economy now without prejudicing the Government's monetary policy? Does the Chancellor agree that the least inflationary way to help British industry out of the recession would be to abolish the national insurance surcharge, which is a tax on employment and was imposed by the Labour Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I read the observations of one brother Brittan with almost as much attention as I listen to the observations of the other. We have made clear our dislike of the national insurance surcharge in the changes that will shortly come into effect reducing the burden of that tax, which, the House will recall, was introduced with acclamation by the Labour Party.

Unemployment Estimates

Mr. Sheerman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the assumption of 2·9 million unemployed in 1982–83 contained in his White Paper, Cmnd. 8494-II is still valid.

Mr. Brittan: The assumption, which relates to the unemployed in Great Britain excluding school leavers, is still valid.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister confirm that, in re-examining his estimates and assumptions, the Chancellor will talk not only to Sir Terence Beckett, director general of the CBI, but to Mr. Denny, chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside CBI, who said last week that the economy


is as dead as the dodo and that we are into another recession before we are out of the last? Will he do that before he revises his estimates?

Mr. Brittan: Before any revision of the estimates, there will be a trawl of discussions far wider than the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: As almost all the questions today involve problems of fundamental structural readjustment of the Western economies, all of which were predicted in an OECD report before the election of most of the present Administrations of major Western democracies, is it not time that we addressed our questions and concern to those fundamental structural readjustments and tried to deal with them rather than constantly seeking to apportion blame as between this Administration and the last?

Mr. Brittan: I could not agree more. The fact that under successive Governments there has been a steady upward trend in unemployment that is matched in many other countries shows that fundamental structural problems are involved and that no useful purpose is served by the apportionment of blame, which is a substitute for serious thought about serious issues.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: As all serious commentators agree that unemployment will be higher than the forecasts and assumptions in the White Paper, and as we know that the figures used in the White Paper are provided by the Treasury, is it not clear that the position, disastrous though it is, has been understated, with consequent understatement of Government economic policies generally?

Mr. Brittan: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the assumptions to which he refers are working assumptions and not forecasts. Therefore, it is far more useful to ask what can be done about levels of unemployment which, whatever forecast or assumption one takes, are far too high. The answer to that has been given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. Unemployment will not be reduced in any substantial, serious or lasting way by reflation of demand, which would merely lead to a short-term boost, an increase in inflation and lack of confidence, resulting in levels of unemployment higher than they would otherwise be.

Value Added Tax

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors are taken into account when determining which items are zero rated for the purposes of value added tax.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: VAT is a broadly based tax which, of its nature, covers a wide range of goods and services in the domestic economy. Zero rating is applied as an exception to a number of essential items in family budgets, such as most food, heating and light, public transport and young children's clothing.

Miss Lestor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one such exempted category has always been that of medical supplies, which would include articles of sanitary protection for women? Is he aware that following last week's radio phone-in on the subject and the petition now circulating thousands of women will be petitioning him about this? Will he consider removing the tax from those essential items?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am, of course, aware of the arguments advanced in support of that proposition. I must point out, however, that items of sanitary protection are one of a large list of articles involving what is described as personal hygiene—including toilet paper, soap, toothbrushes, razors and the like. I can see no logical reason to single out one item in the list for special treatment.

Mr. Cormack: On another sanitary point, why does a person who builds a new lavatory receive better VAT treatment than the person who repairs an old one?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That has pulled the plug on my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The whole construction industry is an area in which the boundary between zero rating and standard rating is highly complex. The logical answer, which I do not envisage the Government pursuing at present, would be to apply standard rating to all forms of construction work.

Mr. Pavitt: As items of sanitary protection are the only items on the list given by the Minister which, for biological reasons, are used exclusively by females, does he agree that their inclusion is discriminatory? Is it not time that the Government backed up their views on sexual equality by removing that item from tax?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am glad to say that, in my experience, most women have a tendency to use soap.

Miss Joan Lestor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Due to the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, and the levity with which he treated the question, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is only consuming Question Time. Perhaps it could wait until afterwards.

Mr. Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not a waste of time. That was a sexist remark and the Minister should apologise.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order and it was a waste of our time.

Service Sector (Investment)

Mr. Adley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to seek to make investment in the service sector as attractive as investment in the manufacturing sector; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Government's economic policy aims at providing the right background for profitable investment by companies, whether in the manufacturing or the service sector. But the key to investment, as my hon. Friend will know, is profitability. That, in turn, depends substantially on productivity and sensible wage bargaining, which is not in the gift of this or any Government.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend will know of my interest in the service sector. Will he confirm that the Government recognise that £1 of overseas earnings from, say, tourism or airlines, is just as valuable to the economy as £1 of


overseas earnings from manufacturing industry? Are the Government convinced that the service sector is just as important as the manufacturing sector to the economy of this country?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Yes, the Government accept that. Our general policy has been to avoid introducing new measures that discriminate in favour of specific industrial sectors. The measures introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend in the 1982 Budget that were designed to help business—the NIS changes—and the measures designed to encourage enterprise and innovation, do not discriminate between specific sectors of industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have no desire to have a pecking order in manufacturing and service industries.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister consider the problems of investment in the service industries, in particular those relating to shipping? Will he condemn Lord Matthews, Trafalgar House, Cunard and all others involved in refusing to place an order with British shipyards for the replacement of "Atlantic Conveyor", using British steel? What representations, investment encouragement or other assistance is the Minister giving to see that that takes place?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am not entirely clear how that arises from the original question. The shipping industry must live in an international climate and if it is obliged, or persuaded, to purchase new equipment at a higher price than that which its overseas competitors pay, its ability to compete will be reduced and in the long term the industry and the country suffer.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I do not underestimate the importance of the service industries, will my hon. Friend reconsider his remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and admit that manufacturing industry is the real wealth creator? In an effort to slow down the increase in unemployment, and perhaps reduce it, will he ensure that our manufacturing industry does not suffer from unfair competition, not only from the developing countries, but from developed countries in the European Community?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I agree that one of the duties of the Government is to ensure that our industries do not suffer from genuinely unfair competition. Where there is evidence of genuine unfair competition, it is the Government's duty to take countervailing action. That is accepted. However, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's assumption that there is a wealth-creating aspect in manufacturing industry that does not apply to the service industries.

Economic Output

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects output to obtain the level of May 1979.

Mr. Hayhoe: I cannot give a firm date, but growth will be faster the quicker we are able to improve competitiveness and profitability.

Mr. Bidwell: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the public believe that the Government can no longer hide behind allusions to the Labour Government's record? Does the hon. Gentleman also realise that the public feel

that there is no hope under this Government? Does he agree that to stimulate greater output we must put the unemployed skilled workers into productive employment under the stimulus of policies that have now been set out publicly by the Labour Party? Does he further agree that we must give considerable State assistance through national enterprise? Is it not a wholesale indictment of the Government that there are 4 million people unemployed and that the Government can do nothing about it?

Mr. Hayhoe: More jobs will be available to skilled men and women, as well as to the unskilled, when more people buy British goods.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend give that reply, and the others they have been giving this afternoon, to the workers of Ronson (UK) Ltd., who are now entering their second receivership this year, but who have been manufacturing a product for which there is world-wide demand?

Mr. Hayhoe: I make no comment on that matter, as I do not know the details. However, providing goods and services at the right price and of the right quality will generate demand for those goods, which, in turn, will lead to more jobs in making them. If wage increases reduce our competitiveness, the jobs will be lost.

Mr. Colvin: Further to the original question asked by the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred, known as "Labour's Programme 1982", which contains massive plans for reflation? Will my hon. Friend say what impact those plans would have on our economy and on our international competitiveness if the Labour Party ever had the opportunity to implement them?

Mr. Hayhoe: That is a hypothetical question, as that document will never be implemented. If a Government sought to implement such policies, it would lead to a massive increase in inflation and a consequent massive increase in unemployment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Pawsey: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall have further meetings later today. This afternoon I shall leave for a visit to Dorset.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that typically forthcoming and helpful reply. For the past 143 years, Rugby has been a prosperous railway centre. That prosperity is now threatened by the present ASLEF dispute. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question".] The question will come in a moment.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would oblige me and bring it at once.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ASLEF dispute is not supported by the overwhelming majority of railwaymen and, according to the BBC, is not


supported by the majority of the Shadow Cabinet? What advice does my right hon. Friend give to railwaymen in general and to Shadow Ministers in particular on how to get the railways back to normal working?

The Prime Minister: May I in turn thank my hon. Friend for his typically helpful initial question? With regard to the future of the railways, there is no future unless working practices agreed in 1919 are updated. The problem could be quickly over if the ASLEF workers returned to work and accepted flexible rostering, in accordance with the British Rail offer.

Mr. Foot: In view of the growing gravity of the crisis on the railways, will the right hon. Lady now—desperately late, but still not too late—instruct the Secretary of State for Transport to cease his inaction and take a positive step towards trying to find a solution to the crisis? Does not the right hon. Lady consider it high time that one of her Ministers discussed with the parties concerned the growing crisis that threatens the railways?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The board has made it quite clear that if the drivers are prepared in their own interests to accept flexible rostering and return to work in sufficient numbers to enable a timetable and reliable service to be operated the railways need not close. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to join me in an appeal to drivers to accept flexible rostering and return to work.

Mr. Foot: The appeal that I made to the right hon. Lady a moment ago is exactly the appeal that has been addressed to the Secretary of State for Transport by Mr. Sidney Weighell, whom the right hon. Lady quoted a day or so ago. Mr. Weighell says:
It is the refusal of your Government to honour its commitments to the railway community which is responsible, above all, for that deeper crisis in the railway industry".
He also says that he takes the greatest exception to the Prime Minister having the temerity to pray him in aid in defending her policies. Therefore, will the right hon. Lady apologise to Mr. Weighell, to the railway community and, at last, take action to stop this dispute getting even worse?

The Prime Minister: I prayed Mr. Weighell in aid only in making a judgment on the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Weighell was right. The way to end the strike is for ASLEF to accept flexible rostering, as the NUR has, and for people individually to return to work. Then the railway strike will be over. That will be in the interests of the railway and of the whole working population. The Government, through the external financing limit, have given record assistance to the railways and there is a first-class investment programme now in progress.

Mr. Foot: Does not the right hon. lady think that it is an outrage that, on the eve of a major national crisis such as this, none of her Ministers has seen all the parties concerned?

The Prime Minister: No, I think it is an outrage that the right hon. Gentleman will not appeal to the drivers to return to work.

Mr. Lee: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lee: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite her Government's criticism of the Israeli action in

Lebanon, she remains a friend of the Israeli people and an admirer of Israel's domestic achievements and democracy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we have always admired Israel's democracy and her tremendous achievements in turning that land into a fertile and rich country. We are totally committed to the security of Israel. We believe that that security will be best achieved when Israel and the Palestinian people mutually accept and respect one another's rights.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Will the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is doing itself no good by an exhibition of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard.

Mr. Jenkins: Does the right hon. Lady agree that no formula that allows the ASLEF executive to continue with the equivocation of the past year, or to escape from its clear obligation to accept the McCarthy award, is tolerable? Does she also agree that to keep the support of the other rail unions it is necessary not only to point out the dark consequences of the strike but to make clear the Government's wholehearted commitment, when the present difficulties are overcome, to an efficient railway system with a secure long-term future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree that we cannot make progress unless we have flexible rostering. The question has been considered for a long time. A few months earlier this year, after having considered it, Lord McCarthy said that
unless progress is made on this question, the future outlook for the railway system and railwaymen is bleak and unpromising".
As I pointed out earlier, the external financing limit for this year is about £900 million, and last year it was about £930 million. The operating grant this year, included in that, is about £800 million. I have a list of many projects in which the British taxpayer is investing. They cannot give a return unless we improve the present practices.

Mr. Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that in some parts of the country NALGO members are blacking the work that is necessary to inform National Health Service employees of the Government's improved pay offer? Will my right hon. Friend condemn that practice and take every possible step to ensure that the terms of the pay offer are widely known?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I understand that one of the regional health authorities wished to put details of the pay offer into the pay packets but NALGO blacked the necessary work. It is important that full details of the offer should be conveyed to the employees and we are considering how it can be done.
I urge NHS ancillary workers to accept the 6 per cent., which is the same amount as has been offered to and accepted by the Armed Forces, by the teachers and by the doctors, and is rather more than has been accepted by the Civil Service. We deliberately made a special case of the nurses to give them 7½ per cent., and I believe that that was generally agreed in the House.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although the ASLEF strike cannot possibly be justified, nevertheless it would be wrong to let the railway network close down, because of what that would do to the employment prospects of thousands of railwaymen who


are not involved in the dispute? Therefore, will the Prime Minister change tack and set up a court of inquiry on the understanding that ASLEF calls off the strike?

The Prime Minister: No. There have been endless arbitrations and inquiries, finishing with that of Lord McCarthy, whom I have just quoted. He said that flexible rostering must be accepted.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the strike will be very damaging, particularly to those who work on the railways, and to many other people who work in other industries. The way to end the strike is for individual members to accept with all speed the terms of the new contract that the British Railways Board has offered, so that they can return to work and the railways be kept going.

Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, instead of constantly urging the Government to solve the rail dispute, people should urge the TUC to direct ASLEF to call off its strike, on the ground that it is detrimental to the trade union movement as well as being detrimental to the country as a whole?

The Prime Minister: The ASLEF strike and the National Health Service strike are both detrimental to the trade union movement as a whole. If the ASLEF executive will not recommend a return to work, it is up to individual members to accept the BRB's offer.

Miss Joan Lestor: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind that unemployment among women is now accelerating at twice the rate of unemployment among men and that certain Government measures, such as the work availability tests and other things, will make it even more difficult for women who have the opportunity of a job to take it, will the right hon. Lady state this afternoon that women have an equal right to work? Will she also dissociate herself from comments by some of her colleagues to the effect that married women

should stay out of the labour market and leave it to men? In view of the exhibition that we had earlier from the Treasury Benches, will she take the opportunity to educate some of her male colleagues about the sexually discriminatory tax on articles of sanitary protection for women?

The Prime Minister: This is not a Budget. If the hon. Lady wishes to make representations, doubtless she will do so in due time. With regard to jobs, the people best qualified should have them, regardless of whether they are men or women.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Does my right hon. Friend regret the decision of many local councils not to take part in the civil defence exercise later this year? Does she agree with the Home Secretary when he says that local councils can no more declare a nuclear-free zone than they declare a snow-free zone?

The Prime Minister: Yes, local councils cannot declare nuclear-free zones. Many of us wish that nuclear weapons had not been invented, but they have, and it is our duty to make preparations for civil defence to defend the population. It was very disappointing that out of the 54 local authorities that were scheduled to take part in exercise Hard Rock, only 34 were ready to do so. The 20 that were not prepared to do so were all Labour councils.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Lady, when considering all the proposals put to her on the railways dispute, recognise that the British Railways Board and the House have a duty to the nation?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The railways have a duty of service to the nation. So have all those who work on the railways. The vast majority of those who work on the railways, including some ASLEF members, are still working. Those who are still working, especially the ASLEF drivers, have the great gratitude of the nation. The whole question can be sorted out if the remaining ASLEF members accept flexible rosters, which have been inquired into endlessly. I hope that by Tuesday they will have done so.

Business of the House

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Aviation Security Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Motions on Supply procedure.
TUESDAY 20 JULY—Until about 7 o'clock, motions on the up-rating orders on social security benefits, supplementary benefit, child benefit, family income supplements, pensioners' lump sum payments, and supplementary benefits (requirements and resources).
Motion relating to industrial training board orders.
Motion on the rate support grant reduction (Stirling district) 1982/83.
Motion on European Community document 6168/82 on revenue duty on traditional rum.
Remaining stages of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 21 JULY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on developments in the European Community July-December 1981, Command No. 8525.
Motion on the Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations.
THURSDAY 22 JULY—Supply [28th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on the Royal Air Force on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations.
FRIDAY 23 JULY—Supply [22nd Allotted Day] (second part): Debate on the preliminary draft general Community budget for 1983, and the supplementary budget No. 1 for 1982.
MONDAY 26 JULY—Remaining stages of the Civil Government (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
[Revenue duty on rum from French Overseas Departments, Document No. 6168/82.
Relevant Report from European Legislation Committee: 23rd Report of Session 1981–82 (HC 21-xxiii para. 2) Preliminary Draft General Budget for 1983, Document No. 7790/82.
Preliminary Draft Supplementary and Amending Budget No. 1 to the General Budget for 1982, Document No. 7789/82.
Relevant Report from European Legislation Committee: 26th Report of Session 1981–82 (HC 21-xxvi paras. 1 and 2)].
The House will wish to know that subject to progress of business it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer adjournment on Friday 30 July.

Mr. Foot: I should like to put three matters to the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him a week or so ago for a statement on the sale of BNOC assets and the steps to be taken to avoid a repetition of the fiasco of Amersham International. It was indicated that the Government were not yet ready to make a statement. The Opposition want a statement as speedily as possible. Even if the Secretary

of State for Energy has not yet concluded his proposals, we feel that he must make a statement before the House adjourns for the recess. By one means or another, we must avoid the scandal that occurred over the Amersham sale.
The unemployment figures show every sign that they will be sustained at the same appalling rate when they are next announced. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will now respond to the request that I have made on several occasions that there should be a debate on unemployment in Government time before the recess.
On the issue of the railways, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have consultations with the Prime Minister about the letter sent by Mr. Sidney Weighell to the Secretary of State for Transport to which I referred a few minutes ago. The right hon. Gentleman will see that the letter makes a serious charge against the Secretary of State for Transport who should in any case come to the House to make a statement upon it. What the Opposition want is a response to the proposal that Mr. Weighell includes in the letter for an initiative by the Government to help to deal with the growing railway crisis.

Mr. Biffen: I shall take the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes in reverse order. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been most concerned to come to the House with statements as the crisis on the railways has developed. I am certain that he will maintain that reputation of attendance upon the House. I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the letter of the general secretary of the National Union of Railwaymen to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred.
The right hon. Gentleman asks for a debate on unemployment. I am sure lie recognises that the House debated unemployment last week. Of course it is a serious matter of continuing concern. It is relevant to all the economic debates undertaken in the House. I cannot guarantee, however, that time will be found in Government time for a debate on this topic if we are to maintain the programme of rising by 30 July.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the sale of Britoil, I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. My right hon. Friend will be the first to answer questions on 26 July and hopes to use that as an occasion to inform the House of the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Foot: What was debated a day or so ago in the House was the shameful manner in which the Government were treating the unemployed. We want a further debate upon the total number of unemployed and the fresh announcements that will be made in the next couple of weeks. I believe that the Government have an absolute responsibility to provide time for a full debate on the subject.

Mr. Biffen: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. I was observing that the House last week debated a Liberal Supply day motion on unemployment. [Interruption.] Unemployment is a topic, even if it is raised by the Liberal Party. I shall of course bear in mind the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. I have to observe that I believe there is a general will in the House that we should rise at a reasonable time. I should have thought that Friday week was a reasonable time. I have to bear that in mind as a consideration.

Mr. Terence Higgins: Is it not significant that in a week in which there are no fewer than three Supply days when the Opposition can choose the subject for debate, they have not chosen to have a debate on the railways? Is it not therefore apparent that while the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) is prepared to indulge in exchanges at Question Time and following statements he is not prepared to see his views examined in detail in full debate?

Mr. Biffen: Yes. I think it is significant.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has so far failed to carry out his undertaking to investigate and report upon the conduct of an official in the Northern Ireland Office and the suspicion is growing that it is his intention to play out time until the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that his right hon. Friend will at least make an interim statement on this subject next week?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the request that the right hon. Gentleman makes.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the Leader of the House not accept that, while one can understand the reluctance of the Opposition to initiate a rail debate and expose their own embarrassment, there is none the less an obligation on the Government to ensure that this subject should be debated before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. An opportunity will of course arise upon the Consolidated Fund Bill for debating this matter. There might be a disposition on both sides of the House to take advantage of that facility.

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the Leader of the Opposition and follow that by calling two Conservative Members.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that it is grossly misleading for the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) to attempt to say that the Opposition have tried to avoid debates on the rail crisis? We are the only people who have provided time. The right hon. Member for Hillhead should not be so eager to pick up titbits from his Tory friends.

Mr. Biffen: I know that the Leader of the House has a time-honoured conciliatory role, but the prospect of trying effectively to effect a conciliation between the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) would tax anyone's energies.

Mr. John Farr: In view of the critical position in the negotiations on multi-fibre arrangement 3, may we have a debate in the House either next week or the week after, but before the Recess, about protecting the interests of British industry?

Mr. Biffen: That topic would be best pursued on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Sir Frederic Bennett: No one would suggest another debate on the Middle East, although the crisis is still serious. Will a statement be made next week, or at least before the Recess, on the dangerous position in the

Middle East, with special reference to the suggestion now mooted in the media that a British military presence should be part of any settlement? The suggestion has worried many people.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend rightly mentions the tragic and serious position in the Middle East. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend's anxiety that there should be a statement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. So that we are fair to those who are deeply interested in the fisheries debate that will follow, I propose to allow questions to run until four o'clock by the digital clock, but for no longer.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do the Government believe that it is fair to ask a 78-year-old man faced with the appalling burden of going into hospital for a cateract operation to go through all the papers that will be needed in the Falklands inquiry? May we have a statement next week if it is necessary to find a successor to Lord Franks?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the membership and terms of reference of the committee were endorsed without a Division by the House, which was well aware of what it was doing. Should there be any reason for the withdrawal of Lord Franks from the committee of inquiry, no doubt my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will consider the best way in which to present the matter to the House.

Mr. John Stokes: May I refer my right hon. Friend to motion 38 on the Order Paper in his name under the heading "Periodic Adjournments". That motion would appear seriously to curtail the rights of Back Benchers to have a debate on an Adjournment motion for a specified period. Will this serious matter be debated soon?

Mr. Biffen: It will be debated on Monday.

Mr. David Alton: Given the controversial decision announced this morning by the chairman of the British Gas Corporation not to site the supply and operational base for the new Morecambe Bay gas field in Liverpool and the subsequent loss of 1,000 jobs, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy will tell the House soon why that decision was made?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to the hon. Gentleman's point. However, there is still time to put down questions for 26 July, when my right hon. Friend will be answering.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Due to the importance of the debate on seat belt regulations on Thursday 22 July, may there be some juggling with this and other business so that the regulations may be debated on Tuesday or Wednesday, when hon. Members may find it more convenient to attend?

Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman knew how much juggling has gone into the present immaculate pattern, he would realise why I am most anxious not to disturb it.

Mr. Barry Henderson: In view of the increasing evidence of restrictive trade practices in the motor car industry, which result in British car prices being


on average one-third higher than anywhere else, will my right hon. Friend arrange time for the Government's attitude to such matters to be clarified, perhaps next week? The cost to the British economy is now running into thousands of millions of pounds.

Mr. Biffen: The matter was aired in the House, but I am sure that the Consolidated Fund Bill would be the proper time to raise such a topic from the Back Benches.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Can the Leader of the House tell us now for how long the Recess will last and the date of resumption?

Mr. Biffen: I should be glad just to get to the date of the Recess. When we are nearer to that date I shall bear in mind the general anxiety to know when we must return.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: I refer again to the railway dispute and I shall be discreet and not tell the right hon. Gentleman what he can do with the Consolidated Fund Bill. Does he recollect that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to clear obligations? Does he accept that the obligations are the responsibility not only of the trade unions and the British Railways Board but of the Government? Is it not time that the Government tried to resolve the dispute?

Mr. Biffen: I know the strictures of the hon. Gentleman upon the merits of Government policy. I can best help the House by saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has come to the Dispatch Box frequently to explain the course of the dispute and the Government's attitude towards it. He will persist in that.

Mr. Nigel Forman: In view of the importance of achieving durable and sensible arrangements on Civil Service pay and conditions, when can the House debate the Megaw report before any Government decision?

Mr. Biffen: It would be prudent for the Government to engage in many consultations outside the House before having a debate, which will be of the utmost importance, on the Megaw report. I can give only the dispiriting reply that we cannot debate it next week.

Mr. James Lamond: As it must now be obvious to the Leader of the House that the debate on the defence Estimates was an inadequate vehicle in which to debate the special United Nations session on disarmament, and as the special session had an extremely disappointing outcome because of the negative approach of both the Prime Minister and President Reagan, may we debate this important subject before the recess?

Mr. Biffen: Arms levels and disarmament have been mentioned in previous defence debates and there are two days remaining when they may be debated. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism on the matter, but it is not likely that the Government can provide time during the next two weeks.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British Gas Corporation said from the beginning that its decision on the supply base would be based entirely on commercial criteria after the most careful investigation and that, therefore, we need no further questions on the matter?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend aims her observations not only at me, but I am glad to know that some hon. Members believe that the House does not need too many preoccupations.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call only those hon. Members who have already risen. The number that I can call will depend on the length of questions.

Mr. Christopher Price: The Leader of the House has juggled the Report stage of the Administration of Justice Bill into the small, or perhaps the larger, hours of Wednesday morning. When shall we see the new amendment on the qualification for jurors that the Attorney-General will put down. Is the Leader of the House aware that we are entitled to a little time to study the amendment before Report stage?

Mr. Biffen: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to see such an important amendment as early as possible. I shall draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to his point.

Dr. David Clark: In view of the statement earlier today by British Shipbuilders of the complete closure of the ship repair division on the River Tyne, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Industry to explain to the House why the ship repair yards are being decimated, why the men who refitted HMS "Fearless" are now being cast aside and why they will bring my town to its knees in the same way as Consett?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point.

Mr. Don Dixon: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to study early-day motions 541, 545 and 602, which have been signed by 219 right hon. and hon. Members, and which concern the replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor"?
[That this House is gravely concerned at the news that, after the strong, warm and deserved congratulations expressed to the Forces and the many shipbuilding and dockyard workers for their unselfish efforts during the Falklands crisis together with the deep sorrow at the loss of many men and ships, including the 'Atlantic Conveyor', the Cunard Line are considering placing an order for the replacement of the 'Atlantic Conveyor' with a Japanese shipyard; believes that this is a strange and unpatriotic way of rewarding the workers of this country for their recent efforts and further notes with alarm the Minister's recent reply indicating that Her Majesty's Government who undoubtedly will be paying compensation for the loss of the 'Atlantic Conveyor', are not prepared to take any action to ensure that this order is placed in British shipyards but prefer instead to reward foreign shipyards with work when British workers' great efforts in getting HMS 'Illustrious' to sea in record time are to be rewarded by further redundancies.]
[That this House, recognising the outstanding contribution of British shipbuilding workers to the mobilization and support of the Royal and Merchant Navies during recent hostilities in the South Atlantic, deplores Ministerial statements in the House that the Government will refuse to take any steps to ensure that the order for a vessel to replace the 'Atlantic Conveyor' will be placed in British shipyards.]
[That this House fully supports the joint shop stewards committee of British Steel Stocksbridge and Tinsley Park in their endeavours to make sure that the replacement for the 'Atlantic Conveyor' is built in a British shipyard and made from British steel, and requests the Government to pay compensation to the owners of 'Atlantic Conveyor' on these conditions.]
Will, the right hon. Gentleman find time for the House to discuss this issue so that we can express our views on patriotism to Lord Matthews. During the Falklands war, he was keen to express his views on that subject to the people of Britain through his newspapers. In addition, a debate would allow us to discuss the serious event that has occurred today, which has just been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)?

Mr. Biffen: That topic was relevant to yesterday's debate on regional policy and was, indeed, touched on during that debate. However, I shall draw the Secretary of State's attention to that point.

Mr. Leo Abse: As the Rayner scrutiny report on museums has been published and contains a Philistine attack on the theatre museum and joins the commercial and other penetrating influences that will take away childhood from our little ones by closing the Museum of Childhood in the East End, may we have a debate on that issue before the recess, or, if that is impossible, may we be given a firm assurance that important decisions affecting the cultural life of our nation will not be taken until the House has reassembled?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has sought to be reassuring, but I shall certainly draw that point to his attention.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Leader of the House withdraw Tuesday night's order, which gives the Secretary of State for Scotland the power to reduce the rate support grant given to Stirling district council in my constituency? Is he aware that about two months ago the Secretary of State held discussions with the Tory-controlled Lothian regional council on the basis of a rate support grant reduction of £45 million yet has still not given any intimation of his views? Nevertheless, within a day and a half of meeting Stirling district council the order to reduce its rate support grant was printed and published. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not lend himself to the Secretary of State's political victimisation of Stirling district council.

Mr. Biffen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having given a powerful trailer of the formidable speech that he will doubtless deploy on Tuesday night.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman refrain from hiding behind the Question Time of 26 July when it comes to the sale of Britoil? Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy at least brings the prospectus for the sale to the House before that sale takes place? It would be inopportune and invalid to go through the mish-mash of the Amersham sale. The profits from that sale, which have been reported this week, show that the nation has been denuded of valuable assets because of the Government's doctrinaire policies.

Mr. Biffen: Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is most anxious to deal with

the matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes?"] Yes. He is most anxious to deal with a matter of such great general interest to the House. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to his attention so that he can take them into account when considering how best to handle the matter on 26 July.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the school closures that are taking place all over the country, including the deplorable decision to approve the closure of Westcotes school in my constituency and the threat to many primary schools? When can we fully debate what is happening to our schools, despite falling rolls?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman is very effective at using these occasions to remind us of the difficulties and problems in his constituency. That is a legitimate use of Parliament, but I fear that Government time is unlikely to be available next week. However, such issues can be debated on the Floor of the House during Adjournment debates.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: As article 92 of the Treaty of Rome precludes the payment of State aids and subsidies to industries, such as the shipbuilding industry, in Europe, although those same subsidies are being paid to Japanese manufacturers to compete with us over the replacement of the "Atlantic Conveyor", should there not be a statement from the Dispatch Box on that point and on whether the order should be given to a yard outside the United Kingdom?

Mr. Biffen: I have already said that I shall notify the Secretary of State for Industry of the general interest and anxiety expressed on that subject. However, I should not like the hon. Gentleman's supposition that no subsidies are available to British Shipbuilders to go unchallenged.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The Leader of the House seems surprisingly reluctant to concede a debate on unemployment, as if such a debate would be a retread of previous debates. Given the recent publication of the Rayner report and the grim message of the "Manpower Review", which has been recently published by the Manpower Services Commission, is not there a need to hold a debate on employment services before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Biffen: I note that point. However, I have to share with the House the problem and anxiety of balancing the demands made on this week, next week and the week after if we are to rise by 30 July.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recall that a few weeks ago I asked whether a statement would be made on the allocation of money to National Health Service hospitals in view of the announcement that the Royal Marsden hospital in London was to close about 33 cancer beds because it had a £750,000 deficit? The Government seem happy and prepared to make statements about the dispute between the Government and the nurses and ancillary workers, to blame them for the suffering that results from such action and to continue reducing the NHS's ability to provide the necessary cash to keep open those cancer beds and, thereby, to reduce the suffering of patients who are badly in need of help and assistance.

Mr. Biffen: I am not competent to answer a question on the specific circumstances of the Royal Marsden


hospital and at least I am aware that I am not competent. However, I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. David Winnick: In view of the totally unsatisfactory answers on the railway crisis that we received from the Prime Minister at Question Time, is it not necessary to hold a debate on that subject, and to hold it in Government time? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in such a debate the Opposition could show that the Government, far from wishing to bring about any conciliation, are determined to use the dispute to declare war on the trade union movement?

Mr. Biffen: If there are such compelling reasons to the advantage of the Opposition, to hold a debate on the railways they could well use a Supply day to that end.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a statement is made as soon as possible—obviously, before the recess—on the multi-fibre arrangement negotiations. Given the right hon. Gentleman's background at the Department of Trade he must be aware of the great anxiety felt by the textile trade, which has been expressed by the president of the British Wool Textile Confederation, who believes that the Government are indifferent. Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman taking item 39 on the Order Paper on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which also reduces Back Bencher' rights, next Monday?

Mr. Biffen: I have nothing further to add on the subject of the MFA negotiations, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade well knows hon. Members' widespread interest in the textile industry. I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point is yes, but I shall confirm my answer later.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Given the continued and terrifying increase in the number of closures and redundancies in the engineering and textile industries in West Yorkshire, and particularly in Bradford, will the

right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on the industrial situation in West Yorkshire as quickly as possible so that we can go into the matter in much more detail?

Mr. Biffen: A debate was held on regional development only yesterday; and with that debate just behind us I cannot, in all conscience, hold out the promise of a repeat debate in the near future.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy that the British Gas Corporation's decision on the Morecambe gas field development is another kick in the teeth for Merseyside? The people of Merseyside feel that the Prime Minister and the Tory Government do not give a damn about unemployment on Merseyside.

Mr. Biffen: I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Energy knows of those sentiments.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement next week from the Minister responsible for sport about the breach of the Gleneagles agreement by the Tory Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) and that overpaid BBC hack, Jimmy Hill, who seem to be involved in a conspiracy to send a football team to South Africa to give more credibility to the racist regime there?

Mr. Biffen: I do not hold out much hope that such a statement will be made, but I shall ensure that the Minister knows of the request.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: In view of the expiry yesterday of the agreement between the British Aluminium Company and the Government to maintain the Invergordon aluminium smelter on a care and maintenance basis, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland to make an urgent statement saying that there is still a possibility of restoring the 900 jobs involved?

Mr. Biffen: I shall ensure that the hon. Member's question is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Common Fisheries Policy

[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 7787/82, 7786/82, 7788/82, 7863/82 and 7954/82, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 7th July 1982, which amends the annexes to Documents Nos. 7863/82, 7786/82 and 7788/82 by revising certain total allowable catches and quotas for 1982, and the White Paper on Developments in the European Community January-June 1981 (Cmnd. 8365).]

Mr. Speaker: Before we begin the debate, I wish to tell the House that all hon. Members except one who have said that they want to speak have strong constituency interests. They will be called only if their colleagues make brief speeches.
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

4 pm

Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to move
That this House reaffirms its commitment to a 12 mile exclusive limit, dominant preference in the 12 to 50 mile zone, effective conservation measures, and catch quotas for the United Kingdom which fully reflect the extent of fishing stocks in United Kingdom waters and the loss of fishing opportunities for the United Kingdom in third-country waters as the essential requirements for the United Kingdom in any acceptable Common Fisheries Policy, and accordingly demands that the United Kingdom Government refuse to agree to any Common Fisheries Policy settlement that does not secure these essential requirements.
The debate is about the approaching settlement of the common fisheries policy. Associated documents make clear what is likely to be in that settlement. I read the Government's amendment with astonishment. It refers to maintaining
the need to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit, preference outside 12 miles"—
there is nothing in the documents about that—and the need for
adequate quotas for the United Kingdom".
The documents make it clear that on limits and quotas there has been a massive sell-out by the Government. It is no use tabling a motion with weasel words which suggest that the issue is still to be fought, because we know that the Minister has accepted the basis of the Commission documents on our protection limits and quotas.
The Minister's bacon has been saved by the Danes. The last time the Minister was saved by the French. He is now saved by the Danes' retreat from coming to an agreement. After the previous occasion the Minister was involved in a series of surrenders to the French along certain sectors of the coast to secure their agreement. The Government amendment refers to
the search for a solution on the outstanding issues".
There is only one outstanding issue—what danegeld will the Minister pay to achieve the Danes' agreement? He cannot now easily go back—although we shall urge him to do so—and reject the earlier agreement.
The Government amendment is fearfully inadequate for the realities of the crisis. I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in Aberdeen. It is amazing what a visit to a fishing port can do for her. On 26 April 1979 she said:
We shall make fishing top priority in our EEC negotiations. The proposals we have so far received from the EEC have been totally unacceptable.
Using the tough words to which we have become accustomed, she added:
Our European partners must accept three fundamental facts.
One was that the move to a 200 miles limit since we joined the Community had changed the situation and, secondly,
that our waters contain more fish than the rest of the Community put together.
If one considers what has happened to the industry since we entered the Common Market we can understand the strength of her words.
When we examine the solutions we realise how much the Prime Minister has failed to fulfil her pledge. I should not use the word "pledge" because the Tory Party rarely gives such a thing. Tories proceed by nods, becks, hints and implications. But the Prime Minister's words were stronger than that.
Since we entered the Common Market the deep and mid-water fleet has declined by 80 per cent. Humberside is especially affected. For every boat fishing today there were five before we joined. The inshore fleet in England and Wales has also deteriorated. Of the 969 vessels operating in 1980, half were over 25 years old and only 13 per cent. were under 10 years old. The decimation of the deep-water fleet and the ageing of the inshore fleet has had its impact.
In Scotland the figures are better. Of the 1,000 vessels operating in 1980, 20 per cent. were over 25 years old and one-third under 10 years old. And, on top of this, there has been a loss of jobs in the processing factories and the docks, sometimes on a massive scale.
The documents set out the proposals, not just for one year, but for the continuation of a derogation for the next 10 years, and the process for renegotiating for yet a further 10 years. We are considering the future of the industry and these proposals are inadequate.
In her speech in Aberdeen the Prime Minister also said:
our negotiating aims will be for: 1. an adequate exclusive zone. 2. a further considerable area of preferential access.
The Government amendment refers to
the need to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit
and
preference outside 12 miles.
Over the years the House has stressed the importance of a 12-mile limit and a 50-mile dominant preference area. That 50 miles has gone and there is no mention in the documents of anything to substantiate that the Government will seek preference outside 12 miles.
With the exception of Scottish waters—and not all of them—for the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland coasts we have achieved, not a 12-mile exclusive zone, but effectively a 6-mile exclusive zone. The exceptions and grants of fishing rights to other countries between the 6-mile and 12-mile limits make nonsense of the claim that we are establishing a 12-mile limit.
We pressed the Government to provide maps. I telephoned the Ministry yesterday to see what was happening and I was told that it would not be helpful or suitable for such maps to be made available for public


examination. We know why. It is that such maps would show that not a 12-mile exclusive zone, but a 6-mile zone has been established.
Fishermen in the Irish Sea worry about over-fishing. They believe that their waters are being opened up and that there is a desperate need for protection and conservation. They have been partly helped because of the restrictions on beam trawling. However, even the 12-mile exception that they have been granted is insufficient. For example, although there is a 12-mile exception in Morecambe Bay, one can almost walk out for about six miles before starting on the so-called 12 miles of water.
Without a major headland to headland demarcation, 12 miles do little to give real protection. All those who fish for the main fish, such as plaice, sole and haddock, are fearful of the results. We see the same thing, and perhaps even worse, along the entire East Coast and the South Coast. There is a real opening up of the waters, and, where the limit has been extended, the exceptions remain massive.
The right hon. Gentleman will say that these were historic rights, but these were surely what the Minister, and the Prime Minister when she made her statement were thinking of. The Prime Minister spoke about special measures to deal with the loss of third country waters and the new 200-mile concept. Given that, it is nonsense to talk about a 12-miles exclusive zone. Right along the East Coast, with the only exception being the Wash, there are incursions of one kind or another by our Common Market partners in the 12-mile limit.
From Berwick to Coquet the limit is 12 miles—except for Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Germany, who can fish for herring. From Coquet to Whitby there is the 12-mile limit—except for the Germans and the Dutch, who can fish for herring. From Flamborough Head to Spurn Head the limit is 12 miles—except for the French; and so it goes on right down to the south-east corner of England. Right across the South Coast to Lyme Regis, France has permission to fish for all fish and Belgium and Germany for some fish. The whole apparatus is almost designed to conceal—I do not blame our Common Market partners for that, I blame the Government—the fact that it is not a 12 mile exclusive limit but a 6-mile limit, with six miles dominant preference. This is presumably what the Minister means by some kind of preference outside the 12 miles. He has effectively shrunk it to the six miles. That is why the maps that would have shown the extent of the sell-out were not available.
I remind the Prime Minister of what she said on quotas, when she said that we have to remind our Common Market partners of "three fundamental facts". Fact two was that
our waters contain more fish than the rest of the Community put together.
Point four in negotiating aims was that
Britain must have a very substantial share of the total allowable catch which takes account of the fact that we are contributing most of the water and most of the fish.
In practice, we have only had a small concession on the seven principal species of fish of another 0·5 per cent.—from 35·6 per cent. to 36·1 per cent. On the species for human consumption. The quota has gone up from 28·8 per cent. to 29·8 per cent. This is in the context of the fact that our waters contain two-thirds of the fish stock, yet of the fish for human consumption the quota is for less than

a third. In other words, it is half the amount that would be any respectable response to the fact that we have two-thirds of the water and of the fish.
This is against the tough words of the Prime Minister and her colleagues about what our EEC partners must expect and accept from her. The problem is that we are running against the clock. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) said in our debate last December that the time was half an hour to midnight. It is now five minutes to midnight. In a couple of weeks' time we shall be in recess, and by the end of the year we must have an agreement. We have the documents and the Governments have agreed, with the exception of the Danes and they have rejected the agreement not because they want less, but because they want more, which, by definition, means less for us.
The EEC has come up with an astonishing solution. If we cannot have adequate quotas for everyone, it says, let us increase the size of the stock. They have created an extraordinary fish called a paper fish. It is not so much a Paul Daniels sleight of hand, but a Tommy Cooper sleight of hand—the trick has failed because the fishermen have seen through it. This paper fish has been created in a cynical way. Against the advice of the scientists and against the reckoning for the conservation of future stocks, they have pushed up the total catch available.
There has been a 50 per cent. increase in North Sea and Irish Sea whiting. Most disturbing of all, and particularly disturbing to Scottish fishermen, is the pushing up of the mackerel allowable catch by one-third, a staggering 101,000 tonnes. No wonder Fishing News said "Fish now, pay later."
That manoeuvre has angered and disturbed the fishermen who are concerned about the future of the industry, even if the Minister is not. The attempt to conceal this basic sell-out has been seen, and the sell-out continues. The most recent document, which I did not know was in front of us until I saw the italic additions to the Order Paper today, is concerned with third country waters. Even there, the unnumbered document of 7 July showed a reduction in Norway cod by 1,000 tonnes and a corresponding increase for the Germans. There has been a reduction in Norway haddock and an increase to the Germans. There has been a decrease in cod and haddock for us from the Faroes, with an increase for France.
With this mixture of conjuring tricks, it is hoped to fulfil the promise of achieving an agreement with the industry. As it is now clearly understood by the fishermen, and as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that he will not come to an agreement without the assent of the industry, I hope that the Minister does not try to fob them off with this catch 22. I hope that they will understand that even though he is pointing a pistol to their heads, against the clock and with a background of the possible diversion of fishing up to our beaches, if the common fisheries policy is not agreed, the responsibility is not theirs but that of the Government. The Minister must not fob off the responsibility on the fishermen to force a shotgun wedding which he can use to ride to political safety.
I wish to have some clarification on some of the workings of the common fisheries policy, as they have been virtually agreed with the Government. For example, document 7594 outlines the workings of the future common fisheries policy. In it, article 11 provides that conservation, regulation, the total allowable catch—


shall be adopted by Council acting by a qualified majority".
Article 14 provides that the management committee can give an opinion "by a majority". If the matter goes to the Council, the Council can act by a qualified majority.
This could be serious and I want clarification because, while this may not be applicable to the negotiated catches each year, it is applicable to a great deal of the workings of the common fisheries policy and, above all, of policing. Incidentally, the Prime Minister in her famous speech in a fishing port in an election year said that we must have
a control system which enables us to police our own waters.
One of the aspects of the majority vote is the policing system. If there is one thing that is common in all the representations from the fishing industry, it is the inadequacy of the policing methods and the faulty inspections—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have a reaction from the Tory Benches. It is nothing to do with fish. "Police" is a trigger word for those people.
I wish to have clarification about the effectiveness, or otherwise, of the veto in this respect. Is it the case that crucial questions such as policing and conservation, total allowable catch and methods of policing can be decided by a qualified majority? Where does this leave us?
We are in a sorry state. We gave ample warning to the Government. It is hateful to say "I told you so", but many of us must say that. We were assured by the Minister in the other place, Lady Tweedsmuir, that if anything went wrong, we at least had a veto. We had no veto. All that a veto could do would be to allow fishing up to our beaches. We told the Government that, and they did not accept it.
The Prime Minister said in Aberdeen at the general election:
Fishermen will find a true and determined friend in the next Conservative Government.
She could have fooled me. She also said:
Further conservation measures will be taken by Britain acting on her own if we cannot get agreement upon these points.
Let the Prime Minister act now. She has shown a good deal of boldness in the past. She has demonstrated it over the past two or three months. I remind the Prime Minister that many of the men who sailed to the waters of the South Atlantic were from fishing stock—I come from the same stock—which provides many of our sailors and merchant seamen. Let her act with the same resolution on the fisheries policy and we shall back her.
The Government should tear up their silly amendment and accept our motion. Let the House be unanimous in the fight for dominant preference in the 12 to 50-mile zone. Let the Minister act on his own, if need be, as the Prime Minister has instructed us to do on other occasions, and we shall give him our support.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, to leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House welcomes the further progress achieved by Her Majesty's Government in the search for a satisfactory revised common fisheries policy, particularly in relation to conservation, marketing and control; confirms that such a policy must maintain the need to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit, preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities, adequate quotas for the United Kingdom, effective conservation measures and a community-wide system of enforcement as well

as improvements in the marketing arrangements hitherto in force; and urges Her Majesty's Government vigorously to continue, in consultation with the fishing industry, the search for a solution on the outstanding issues.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) spoke as I expected. He has always been opposed to any European policy. Therefore, he is opposed to a European fisheries policy and so he puts his name to the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend wants an honourable deal.

Mr. Walker: I would be only too pleased to trace the history of this matter and the way in which it has been dealt with by successive Governments. I would be happy to compare our record in the fishing industry with that of our predecessors.

Mr. George Foulkes: Compare it with the Government's promises.

Mr. Walker: I remind the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West that the sad figures that he gave for the decline of the long-distance fleet also apply to the period when the hon. Gentleman's Government were in office. He was a member of that Government for a short period. The hon. Gentleman did not bother to mention this. The figures were also a result of the Icelandic war, which his Government fought and, perhaps sadly, lost. The hon. Gentleman thinks that, in anything, the European Community is the reason for all our ills.
That remarkable bias came through in other parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech. He talked about access and said that six miles was no use in certain areas, as one could not reach the waters to fish, unless the limit extended from headland to headland. All the Commission proposals are headland to headland. He did not understand that basic fact, which shows his ignorance.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the reduction of our quotas off North Norway. He did not mention that that was more than compensated for by the proposals for Greenland cod and Rockall haddock. That was typical of the overall bias of the hon. Gentleman's presentation.
Let us examine the background and what the Opposition are asking in their motion. The motion has been changed from the motion that was proposed in the debate in December. They have inserted words that seem to imply that what is acceptable to the Opposition, which is different from when they were in Government, is a total of all the fish that would be in our 200-mile territorial waters, if we had them, plus extra fish for the loss of Icelandic waters when its 200-mile limit was imposed. That would come from all our partners in Europe. They would be asked to agree to give up 40 per cent. of the fish that throughout history they have fished. They would be asked to give up all their historic rights. The other nine member countries would be asked to reduce their fishing industries on a massive scale. The Opposition would expect people such as their good Socialist comrades Herr Schmidt and Monsieur Mitterrand to say that they have decided that, because there is a possibility of taking advantage of a 200-mile limit, they will give up all their fishing industries to do so.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to accept the motion. I could have done so. When negotiation was impossible, I could, as my predecessor did, have come constantly to


the Dispatch Box saying that I had agreed to nothing and that I would allow the fishing industry to continue to decline, as it did under the Labour Government.

Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Minister aware that, in the debate on 9 December, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that our motion meant exactly the same as the Government's motion?

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend amended the Opposition's motion and made it much more sensible. Every explanation was given why.
Let us recognise that the tactics suggested by the Labour Party resulted in the decline of the fishing industry in port after port during its period of office. The Labour Government's record of aid to the industry does not compare with our record of aid. In addition, without any threat of any description, the Government, in every negotiation, have worked in harness and harmony with the industry.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West had talks with sections of the fishing industry. Those sections did not demand what is in the Opposition's motion. I had talks with all three sections of the fishing industry today. They are not asking for what is in the hon. Gentleman's motion. They are asking for what they consider to be a settlement that will be in the future interests of the industry and will give them better prosperity in the future than in the past. That is what they are seeking and that is what I am seeking. I shall make clear some of the background to that.

Mr. Buchan: The fishermen have made it clear to me that they cannot allow themselves to be held responsible by the Government for any breakdown in negotiations. Therefore, they are seeking to get the best possible deal within the narrow parameters of the Commission documents.

Mr. Walker: Any member of the fishing industry who has worked with me for the past three years can publicly deny this if it is not true: no part of any negotiation that I have conducted on any topic has been carried out without the agreement of the fishing industry. I have proceeded step by step with those people, discussed and agreed objectives with them. That will continue. That is different from the approach of the Labour Government, who delivered to the fishing industry nothing but rhetoric—years of rhetoric and no progress on fishing policy.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: If what the Minister says is true, why does the NFFO state that its delegation was subjected to extremely heavy ministerial pressure following the NFFO's rejection of the quota and access proposal?

Mr. Walker: The rest of the fishing industry was also present at that meeting. The NFFO sat with me and the rest of the industry on a Friday to discuss historic rights and access detail by detail, but on the Monday it said something different from what it had said to me on Friday. I asked for an explanation. I asked whether it would not go along with any negotiation unless there was an elimination of every historic right in the agreement. The NFFO replied to me, in the presence of the rest of the fishing industry, that at the end of the day it would want to decide the balance of the agreement on its total merits. It was not stuck on any one issue.
As members of the NFFO caught less than 20 per cent. of the total catch I asked whether the NFFO wanted to veto the requirements of the rest of the industry when the rest of the industry wanted a particular agreement. The reply was "No". That is an accurate description of what took place. That is what the NFFO described to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West as pressure from a Minister. It was a clarification of the NFFO position.
I return now to the vital question of access. It is important that the House puts on record once and for all—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall give way in a moment. I have given way a great deal more than the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West did.

Mr. John Prescott: That is a typical reply.

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) knows better than most, I do not have a bad record for giving way.
I wish, however, doubtless to the deep embarrassment of the Opposition, to trace the history on access. First, I shall clarify the position. Until 1964, we had a three-mile limit and beyond that any ship from any country could fish. In 1964, with no disagreement in the House or elsewhere, we signed the London convention in which, in moving to a 12-mile limit, we agreed the historic rights of other countries within that 12-mile limit. With the negotiations to join the Community in 1973 and with the Treaty of Accession, we agreed further historic rights in our six to 12-mile limit.
I wish to remind the Opposition that they decided when they renegotiated the terms of our entry they did not wish to renegotiate the terms on fishing. The Opposition, who are now so critical of the Treaty of Accession with regard to fishing, decided that fishing was not among the items for renegotiation. In fact, there is on record a splendid letter from the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which tells the fishing industry why he considered it was not necessary to renegotiate on fishing.
The Opposition talk a great deal about the 200-mile limit and the fish in our waters. The most important and interesting moment came in 1976. A proposal came forward that we should extend the 200-mile limit for all European countries as a Community. That was the moment to discuss or decide what benefit or disadvantage we, the United Kingdom, would have if we decided to agree with our Community partners to extend to the 200-mile limit. It was the Labour Government in 1976 who decided to extend the 200-mile limit for this country within the context of it being part of European waters. That was not a Conservative Government but a Labour Government. What is interesting is that in those negotiations the Republic of Ireland said "Because there is a lot of fish in our sea, if we are going to extend our 200-mile limit we want an agreement to have perhaps double the fishing quotas of our historic fishing." That was granted to the Republic of Ireland.
The Labour Government negotiating at that time asked for and obtained nothing. That is the position on access and I am glad to have this opportunity to put that on the record. The Opposition keep telling me how many fish we have within the 200-mile limit and how we should go for


all of it. The time to have negotiated that was in 1976, but it was sold for nothing by the Opposition. That is the historic position.

Mr. Buchan: I am completely free from that charge.

Mr. Eric Heffer: So am I.

Mr. Buchan: It should not be forgotten that I resigned from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman should, too. It might be helpful. When I was talking about the 200-mile limit, I was quoting the Prime Minister. She said that that essential factor had to be kept in mind by the Common Market when discussing the shift to the 200-mile limit. The right hon. Lady bowled that ball, not me.

Mr. Walker: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman dissociates himself from the activities of the Government in 1976. I am sure that it was a great relief to everyone that he resigned at the time. The time to have negotiated—the fishing industry recognises it—on the benefits to Britain of the 200-mile limit was in 1976.
The Hague agreements are now part of the legal position that I inherited in 1979. I inherited the London convention rights, 1964, agreed without any disagreement in the House. I inherited the Treaty of Accession rights, with further historic interest granted in the six to 12-mile limit. It is against that background that I had to begin negotiating improvements in our access provisions.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman has twice appeared to suggest that rights conferred between six and 12-mile limits by the Treaty of Accession were historic rights. I challenge that. I do not believe that there is any evidence of a French historic right along the east coast of England, for example, in Northumberland and Yorkshire. That right was not contained in the London convention and when it was conceded in the Treaty of Accession in 1976 no one suggested then that it was a historic right.

Mr. Walker: In terms of the Treaty of Accession rights there are a number of historic rights that we would dispute. The country concerned cannot perhaps show much evidence of historic tradition in that area.
I turn now to the negotiations that have been carried out since. After the demise of the Labour Government and after their agreement to The Hague agreements and their decision not to renegotiate the Treaty of Accession, I inherited the position that in 2,000 miles of our coastline there were historic rights in the six to 12-mile area. Over the past three years, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I have had detailed and prolonged negotiations. I am still not satisfied and I hope that further improvements will be obtained on the proposals, as outlined by the Commission, on the 73 per cent. of the coastline where there were legal, historic rights, and that there will either be an eradication or reduction in those historic rights. Therefore, I wish to make it clear to the Opposition that their desire to table motions whereby there will be no agreement will mean that if there is no agreement the Treaty of Accession rights and the London convention rights will continue unamended. Therefore, it is not in the interest of the British fishing industry to throw away for nothing a negotiation that has already

substantially improved on a position that the Labour Government continued through their Hague agreements. They lost a marvellous opportunity to improve our position.
In terms of access provisions, our objective is to continue to improve that position to the maximum. We shall do that in the negotiations that take place. We shall do the same on quotas. The only quota that the Labour Government obtained in their years of negotiation was given to them when the then Minister decided not to go, for whatever reason, to the meeting of Fisheries Ministers in Berlin. They did a deal in his absence and provided quotas, which in terms of the majority of species in which our fishermen are interested, were much worse than the quotas on offer today. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West referred to "paper" fish. Among the fish that were offered then were substantial quantities of an undesirable fish called the horse mackerel.
With regard to quotas, we have examined with the industry stock by stock, area by area. The preference along our coastline is not just for access but for the proportion of the quotas that we are to obtain in the waters. In negotiation after negotiation we have steadily improved the quotas of the species that our fishermen consider the most financially rewarding.

Mr. Mark Hughes: What is the improvement in our quota percentage of North Sea cod since 1978?

Mr. Walker: I notice that the hon. Gentleman does not mention the five species in which there is a major improvement.
At this stage we do not know the figure that we shall end up with for North Sea cod. A major factor is the negotiation with Norway from which we expect a substantial extra volume of cod to be made available. We have told the Commission that we expect a major portion of that to become available to the United Kingdom. In his usual courteous and charming way I know that the hon. Gentleman will rejoice if we achieve that improvement.

Mr. Gavin Strang: It is surprising that the right hon. Gentleman has not referred to the increased TAC for mackerel. Our mackerel stocks are at risk. The catch in the past two years has provided ample evidence of that. Surely the Government are not prepared to accept the increased TAC for mackerel, which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) described as paper fish.

Mr. Walker: I have expressed my anxiety to the Commission, and will do so again at the meeting next week, about quota, or TAC increases, not based on scientific evidence. One difficulty is that the figures proposed resemble the amount that British fishermen took out of the stock the previous year. Another factor is that in the absence of an agreement the uncontrolled overfishing of mackerel stocks is much greater than if an agreement were obtained. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's view. To build up future stocks we must have an arrangement toughly based on scientific evidence. But over the past year British as well as foreign fishermen have overfished the stocks.
The future structure of the industry is of considerable importance. If we succeed in negotiating the common fishing agreement we can better decide its future structure. I have already talked with leaders of the industry, and shall


continue to have official talks with the major organisations. One proposal in the structural part of the package is for European financial grants, two-thirds of which will be of substantial interest to our industry for modernisation and scrapping older vessels. There is an important potential for our industry.
I come to the most basic point. It was dealt with in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West quoted and in the manifesto, which I am pleased that he did not quote this time after his inaccurate quote previously. The emphasis was on the urgency and importance of proper controls. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has said that that is the most important aspect, too.
Right from the beginning, 12 or 15 months ago, we made it clear that we shall not be satisfied with a common fisheries policy without enforcement; it would be meaningless. If, for instance, the Danes fished double their quota, the objective of the policy would be destroyed. We stated to the Commission that we would not agree to a common fisheries policy unless there was an effective inspection and policing system. We have attained the right to police our territorial waters. We shall see that the resources are made available to do that effectively and well. But we wish to see that other countries are forced to do the same. The suggested regulation was virtually drafted by the United Kingdom. For the first time it brings into operation the power of enforcement and inspection to make sure that quotas and TACs are abided by. That is the best growth potential for the fishing industry. Only by building up the stocks will real growth take place.
I can in no way express optimism that agreement will be reached in the meeting next week. Much negotiation is still to take place on quotas, access and other details. As has been said, the Danish Government are expressing disapproval. The Danish fishermen have gained most from there being no agreement; they have overfished.
I emphasise strongly that for three years I have worked with the industry to find an agreement that will be of benefit. It will be of immense importance if we succeed. If we fail it will not be for want of trying. Refusal and failure might reap immediate cheers from the Opposition at the Dispatch Box, as happened to my predecessor. But we must try to agree on policies to build up the stocks and to improve on what has existed over the past 10 years.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The Minister's historical record would have been more truthful had he told us that, had we not joined the EEC, we should, like Norway, now be enjoying a 200-mile exclusive zone.
We have retreated a long way on the common fisheries policy since the original surrender in December 1971 for which the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) were largely responsible. Even as recently as 7 August 1980 in a debate on the common fisheries policy the House voted unanimously that we should obtain
exclusive access within 12 miles, preferential access within 12 to 50 miles, and an overall share of fish for United Kindgom fishermen which reflects United Kingdom losses incurred in third country waters"—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 934.]
We have now been reduced to a motion that merely reaffirms the exclusive 12-mile zone and preference

outside that to protect particularly dependent fishing communities. There is no mention of the 50-mile preference zone.
The House and the country should realise why we are in the hopeless negotiating position that the right hon. Gentleman described. He described the position accurately but did not tell us how we got there. The blame rests almost wholly with the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup, who, in their indecent hurry to force us into the EEC before the public understood what was happening, sold out the industry in December 1971 and January 1972 and deceived Parliament and the public.
I will recount the hard facts. In 1971 we had already lost the Iceland fishing grounds because the world was moving from a 12 to a 200-mile limit. Before very long, not just Iceland, but Canada, Norway, the Soviet Union and other countries obtained a 200-mile exclusive zone as a basis upon which they could negotiate. If we had remained outside the Common Market, we would have obtained the same 200-mile zone, and our zone would have been particularly well stocked with fish.
Realising that, in 1971 the French rather hurriedly cooked up a common fisheries policy in which every EEC member's zone would be open to all. The Norwegian Government, who were then seeking to join the EEC, together with ourselves demanded a continuing—not just temporary—exemption from that pooling of the whole area.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)—he has not come to watch the result of his action today—promised in the House on 11 November 1971 that we would secure "comparable treatment to Norway". He also promised the House on the same day that
however long the initial period there must be arrangements on a continuing basis subject to review."—[Official Report, 11 November 1971; Vol. 825, c. 1239.]
The crucial question was whether in that review, which is what we are having now, the promised veto in the EEC would be in the hands of the British who wanted to continue the concessions, or in the hands of the French who were determined to end them.
In December 1971 the Norwegians refused to give way on the temporary nature of the concessions and demanded a permanent arrangement as a condition of joining the EEC. At that point—we should remember this today—the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup, as he had promised us comparable treatment with Norway, put urgent and secret pressure on Norway to surrender so that we could surrender too. Indeed, in that month he sent the notorious telegram to the Norwegian Prime Minister that was later leaked to the public and which contained the words:
It is very important for us that we present this question in a manner which will appear satisfactory to our fishing interests.
That was the way in which the negotiations were conducted.
To their lasting credit, the Norwegians refused to give way, insisted successfully on a continuing arrangement, and eventually, in the interests of their fishing industry, obtained a 200-mile exclusive zone by the simple expedient of staying out of the EEC altogether.
But that was not quite the end of the negotiating performance of the right hon. Members for Hexham and Sidcup. They made statements that were designed to


deceive the House and the public into believing that at the end of the 10-year period the veto would be in the hands of the British and not the rest of the EEC.
On 13 December 1971 the right hon. Member for Hexham reported the agreement that he had reached and said that before the end of 1982 a committee would examine the arrangements—this is where we are now—that could follow those that were negotiated for the next 10 years. He then asserted flatly that
these are not just transitional arrangements which automatically lapse at the end of a fixed period.
In reply to an Opposition question he again repeated that the Opposition were
quite wrong in saying that these are purely transitional arrangements".—[Official Report, 13 December 1971; Vol. 828, c. 52–55.]
The next day, 14 December, the Foreign Office representative in the House of Lords, Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has already mentioned today, no doubt speaking out of ignorance rather than malice, positively asserted that the veto would be in British hands. She said:
As to whether we have given up our rights to an automatic veto, that is not so, because we have declared that fisheries are of course a vital national interest, and that being so they attract the unanimity rule."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1971; Vol. 326, c. 1004.]
Therefore, at that time the Government were not merely relying on the unanimity rule that we now find does not exist, but were also wrong about whose hands would hold the weapon. Those statements were direct falsehoods about the Treaty of Accession which had not then been published. The treaty was only published after the then Prime Minister had signed it on 22 January 1972. It said:
Before 31 December, 1982 … the Council, acting on a proposal of the Commission, shall examine the provisions which could follow the derogations in force until 31 December 1982.
In Common Market jargon and law, a derogation ends automatically unless everybody agrees that it should continue.
That is how we came to be placed in the hopeless bargaining position in which we are today and the full responsibility for that should be understood. That is how the British fishing industry has suffered the damage that it has in the 10 years since. Those were the deceptions on the basis of which the House was persuaded to agree, by a small majority, the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill only a week or two later.
On 20 January 1972 a vote of censure was moved by the Opposition on the Government's negotiating methods. In that debate I predicted that in trying to achieve a reasonable long-term settlement when it came to 1982, the Government
would be negotiating … with all the legal cards stacked against them … any other Member of the EEC in this case can veto the continuance of this derogation after 1982 and we cannot, by veto, ensure its continuance".—[Official Report,20 January 1972; Vol. 829, c. 731.]
That is where we are today and that is the story of surrender and deception that got us here.

Mr. John Townend: I accept that mistakes were probably made at the time that we negotiated Britain's entry into the EEC, but would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the former Government, of which he was a supporter, should have dealt with the problem when the terms were renegotiated?

Mr. Jay: If those terms had not been negotiated there would have been no need to renegotiate them. Once Britain got into that position it was exceedingly difficult to get out of it, other than by withdrawing from the EEC.
The guilty men were the right hon. Member for Sidcup and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham. To be fair—the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) wants me to be fair—the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot be blamed for all this. He was one of those who opposed joining the EEC. How right he was. However, unhappily for him, he is not allowed to remind anybody that he was right. He can merely privately put on the fishing industry what it calls "heavy pressure" and tell it that he will do his best if only it will not criticise him in public.
About two-thirds of our fishing industry has thus been virtually destroyed in recent years. It is worth remembering in passing that our industry used to be one source of recruitment and training for the Royal Navy. If we withdraw from the Common Market, we should regain the 200-mile zone and save our fishing industry. If we do not withdraw, we shall obtain, perhaps, a six-mile zone. I am still not clear even whether that will be for a limited period or, for example, for 20 years. That is the choice that faces us.
There is no doubt that the rescue of the fishing industry would be one, though only one, of the major economic benefits of withdrawing from the EEC. Meanwhile, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you are proud that we have a Government whose Foreign Secretary was unable to protect British territory, whose Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was unable to protect the British fishing industry and whose Home Secretary was unable to protect the Queen.

Sir Walter Clegg: We have had a historical review from the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and I could almost have said it for him for he has been a consistent critic of our entry into the Common Market and a consistent critic of the terms of entry that applied to fishing. He took that stance at an early stage.
I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman down that road because I have other things to talk about. I merely say that if we had not joined the Common Market and we now had a 200-mile limit, the issues would be much simpler and this Byzantine delay would not have occurred. But I do not think that all would necessarily have been smiles. The extension of the other fisheries limits and, for my own port, the loss of the fishing grounds around Iceland were the decisive factors rather than entry to the EEC. The middle water fleet was deprived of the waters to which I have referred and that was the greatest loss.
When I made my first speech on fisheries in the House about 16 years ago this very month, the situation was completely different. At that time the limit was three miles. It was then increased to six miles and it was further increased to 50 miles and finally to 200 miles. For hundreds of years we had had a three-mile limit and a free-for-all beyond that. The deep sea industry—especially the large freezer boats—would have had a terrible problem even if we had not entered the Common Market.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Buchan), who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, said that on a previous occasion I said that it


was half an hour to midnight. I agree with him that we are now considerably closer to midnight. My right hon. Friends have often seen delegations from Fleetwood representing the port and fishing interests and they have attended many meetings in Brussels. If we have a proper settlement, we shall have the prospect of a balance which will make Fleetwood a viable port. It will consist of about 10 middle water trawlers and about 70—I hope more—inshore vessels. I and the Fleetwood port generally are concerned that that there should be an increased quota in the Irish Sea for the inshore fleet and that the port should be able to send its trawlers to "sensitive waters", which is the term that is used in the somewhat Byzantine papers that are before us.
A port such as Fleetwood has to have a proper balance. It has to have an inshore fleet and it has to have a deep sea fleet, or middle water fleet, to fish when the other vessels cannot bring fish ashore so as to maintain a constant supply of incoming fish. In my right hon. Friend's negotiations I hope that he will stress the importance of the Irish Sea quota and the availability of Scottish waters and Shetland waters to our middle water vessels.
It is known generally that the fishing industry is crying out for cash. Last year it received £25 million but there has been nothing this year so far. One of the greatest drawbacks of EEC entry has been the long and tortuous negotiations which have taken place and the deep uncertainty which they have produced. I know that my right hon. Friends have done their best and have had to suffer disappointment after disappointment as others have before them. However, the inshore fleet is old because of the uncertainty. It has not been known what sort of vessels to build as there has been uncertainty about the seas in which they would fish. If we can get a settlement with honour and if we can achieve restructuring of the fleet, the result will be a tremendous benefit. I wish my right hon. Friend well when he renews the negotiations.
It is not only the vessels that go to sea that have suffered. The port installations have suffered also because not enough fish have passed through them. I should like to see some help given in that direction. If that is possible, it will be of tremendous advantage to some of the ports that have suffered most. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind. I do not care whether the cash comes from Europe or from the Government as long as it is available and enables us to have a modern and restructured fishing industry.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) made an eloquent plea on behalf of his fishing port. I recall the Fleetwood trawlers that I used to see alongside my home town of Stornoway when I was a boy. I remember also the trawlers from Hull. We hardly ever see those trawlers now. There is something in what the hon. Gentleman said about the long distance fleet having lost out through the loss of the Icelandic waters, but there have been far more damaging consequences as a result of our entry into the Common Market and the common fisheries policy than is covered by that explanation alone.
I think that both sides of the House will agree with the following:
The fishing industry is an essential part of the British economy, particularly in Scotland. It is a vital source of food and

provides jobs for thousands of people both at sea and on shore, often in small communities that rely totally on fishing for their livelihood.
Who could quarrel with those sentiments? They were part of the statement issued by the Prime Minister prior to the general election. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) made effective use of that statement when he opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition.
In the light of that, it is all the more disturbing that there appears to be not the slightest doubt that we are on the verge of an agreement on fisheries. According to all the reports—they seem to be well founded—the policy will have disastrous consequences for our fishermen and the communities which depend wholly or largely on fishing for their livelihood.
In The Times today there is an editorial headed
A Curate's Fish Of A Deal".
That is a reference to the deal that is in the offing. As I understand it, the effect of the old Punch joke was that the curate's egg was good in parts. That cannot be said of the deal that is in the offing according to what has been revealed. The article in The Times refers to
those who believe, with considerable justification that over the years Britain's fishermen have been sold down the river.
That is what many of us have said for a considerable time.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred to the history of the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that the Labour Government did not even have fishing on the agenda during their renegotiations.
An editorial in The Times said of the Conservative Government's negotiations to enter the Common Market:
In its eagerness to join the Community in 1973, the Heath government agreed to sweeping extensions to the so-called London Convention which allowed Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands access to British waters in which they had established 'historic' rights. Then, with the general move to 200-mile zones in 1976, the EEC decreed that all the territorial waters of member countries should in effect belong to the Community, and that they should all have the right to fish in them. This was greatly to Britain's disadvantage, since 60 per cent. of the entire Community fish stocks were to be found in what had been British waters.
There is no argument about that. The editorial concluded:
But the need to mach agreement quickly does not disguise the fact that it is still a poor deal.
I have some sympathy for the Minister. He said that the position that he must defend had been breached to some extent. That is absolutely right. The ramparts were breached, first by the Conservative Government and then by the Labour Government's renegotiations.
Other serious consequences will follow in the wake of the diminution of the fishing industry. A widespread and prosperous fishing industry ensures a permanent stock of hardy and experienced seamen to crew the Navy in war time. The last war demonstrated the need for such reserves in a maritime nation. The recent Falklands affair has given the role of the Navy additional point. One would have thought that a Conservative Government, who claim to have a monopoly of safeguarding national defence, might be expected to consider that factor.
At an early stage there was talk of a 50-mile limit. That was reduced to an exclusive 12-mile limit. The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised recently that he has taken the leaders of the fishing industry with him. That is alarming to some, because we wonder whether Mr. Gilbert Buchan, a past president of the Scottish Fisheries Federation, stuck out for an exclusive 12-mile limit. I was disturbed to read last week that he now says that we must face the fact that


we are a part of Europe. We have always been a part of Europe and always will be. Reading between the lines, that implies that agreement in the EEC will be reached and that we must take the consequences. If that minimum demand is breached, it will be a sell-out of the sticking point for our fishermen.
Breaches of quotas that are agreed within the Common Market are numerous and notorious. It does not do for the Minister to say that he has tied up new policies on protection. They have been breached time and again. Hon. Members on both sides of the House gave examples of EEC vessels fishing herring when there was a ban on doing so. A reporter from The Daily Telegraph saw herring in continental ports. The fishermen fobbed him off with an assurance that they were large sardines. Television film crews filmed landings of herring and other fish that were banned at the time. The EEC has breached its own agreements time and again.
A document issued by the Norwegian Information Department in September 1980 said:
The EEC has confirmed to the Norwegian press that it has overfished its mackerel quota in the North Sea. Despite this fact, there are still EEC boats fishing mackerel. This clearly illustrates that the EEC has completely lost control over its own fishing activities. Norway has pointed this out several times—but without result".
The Norwegian Government were therefore obliged to take a tougher line.
The Danes ask why there should be any quotas. They say that everyone should just go ahead. How long would fishing stocks last if that grossly irresponsible attitude became general?
The giving of fuel subsidies by EEC countries to their fishing fleets also creates difficulties. In spite of Scottish oil, such subsidies have never been payable to United Kingdom boats. Countries that surreptitiously give subsidies are unlikely to harass their own vessels about exceeding quotas. Historic rights should have been thrown into the pool in the present negotiations.
The Government amendment refers to "particularly dependent fishing communities". There is a fishing plan for my area, which the Government seem to have ignored in their negotiations. I am glad that the Shetland plan seems to be receiving support. Nevertheless, the Western Isles are at least as dependent upon herring fishing as that area. The same applies to other areas.
What is happening to the United Kingdom fishing industry is more than a crime: it is a blunder. Our fishermen's interests have fallen into faithless hands. They have been betrayed. The result will be catastrophe. I hope that the Government will founder in due course as a result of that.

Sir Michael Shaw: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that the fishing industry often supports local communities that are entirely and traditionally dependent upon that industry. That is correct both for isolated communities and for those that exist within a wider community. Scarborough is one example of the latter. I am proud to represent it. The fishing industry there is proud and hard working. It lives an independent and forceful life within the wider community of the area.
It would be a tragedy if the industry were allowed to die back. That principally depends on the conditions of fishing. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) said, it depends upon encouragement to build new vessels and to improve infrastructure for the industry. I have had some differences of opinion with my local authority on the matter. We should have more confidence in the future of the fishing industry. I have always maintained that we should encourage a great deal of expenditure on, for example, the building of a new jetty.
The need to provide infrastructure is fully understood by everyone. There are many ways to provide it. Outside help should be encouraged to build infrastructure for the working of an effective fleet.
I have two main points in mind. The first arises out of the meeting that my right hon. Friend the Minister will attend next week. No doubt others will follow. There is an overriding need for a Common Market fisheries agreement. The quicker we get it the better. There must be negotiation. No purpose is served by adopting attitudes that become hardened and incapable of amendment. The question is whether the final result of the negotiations is satisfactory to the parties concerned.
As I have said before—I hope that I shall have sufficient confidence to say it again—we are fortunate indeed in having as our spokesmen in the debates and negotiations in the Common Market the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of State. No one could have worked harder or more positively in the negotiations than they. They have had terrible bad luck. Everything has been against them from the start. First, when they had discussed the matter with the former Commissioner, who was such a great friend to us, the Commissioner, alas, died. His successor then became seriously ill just when negotiations had reached a critical stage. A series of national elections then bedevilled any proper negotiations that might otherwise have taken place. Those events were no fault of our Ministers, but they have been daunting handicaps in the attempt to achieve a settlement.
I believe that in the end we shall achieve a settlement. My experience in the Common Market has been that if one knows what one wants and is convinced that one is right to seek it, in the end one will get it—although not so quickly as one wishes, so one sometimes feels very frustrated. Nevertheless, I believe that in the end we shall achieve a settlement.
It is essential for the Scarborough inshore fleet and, I suspect, many other fleets that the proposals for access and for quotas be discussed together. There must be a package agreement rather than a sectional process. Quotas can be adjusted fairly frequently as a result of discussions, but any agreement on access will be for the long term. Therefore, it is vital that the access terms should be correct. That is the most worrying aspect.
All the documents that have been produced are negotiating documents. I therefore regretted the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). Of course we must voice criticisms and worries, but we must do so in such a way as to support and strengthen the negotiating hand of our Ministers. I wish to be sure that my right hon. Friend is under no illusions as to my views on the 12-mile limit and the access of the Dutch up to a six-mile limit off the Yorkshire coast. I


believe that the same applies to the Germans north of Whitby, but I shall deal specifically with the case of Scarborough and the Dutch.
In the years since I became a Member of Parliament and in the period before the new arrangements came into force, experience showed that it was the powerful Continental boats coming in to the six-mile limit that did so much damage to the herring stocks—so much, indeed, that fishing had to stop altogether. It is not only herring that is affected. The boats are so powerful, the nets so big and the fishing methods so effective that everything is swept up. The result is—if it is not a contradiction in terms—a desert in the midst of the sea in which nothing grows or lives. That is a terrible thing and the cost to the fleet is devastating.
Therefore, in the negotiations, that limit should be examined very closely in relation to Dutch access. The methods used are not traditional and therefore bear no relation to history. They are certainly not methods practised by our own fleet. The conservation record of the foreign boats is not good, whereas we have taken a real and effective interest in conservation.
Having pressed that point strongly upon Ministers, I offer them, as I hope the whole House does, every encouragement for a successful conclusion of what we realise are extremely difficult negotiations. I hope that the practice that they have always followed in the past of intimate consultation with the industry not just before but during the negotiations will continue. In that way, I believe that we shall achieve an agreement of benefit to all.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not believe that those who earn their living from fishing are very interested in who did what or when or who failed to do what or when. Like other hon. Members, I have my own strong views about that, but most people in the industry are now concerned to obtain the best possible settlement in extremely difficult circumstances. It is important that the settlement should favourably affect the whole industry rather than any one of its component parts. There are growing fears that some people in Europe would like to buy off the Scottish element in the industry while giving insufficient attention to the needs and problems of the English industry. When one examines the access map, it is striking how many of the problems arise south of the border.
Access is particularly important in my area, but it also has wider significance. I have often referred to the problems of the area from Berwick to Coquet Island. The Minister has several times given the impression today that there are long-standing historic rights justifying all that is still being given away in the proposed settlement. It is certainly an improvement on the Treaty of Accession. It is confined to herring and it names the countries to which it relates. That is not an improvement of substance, in view of other factors. We know which countries want to come here and we know the effect of the beam trawling ban on other fisheries. Nevertheless, at least on paper it is an improvement.
The proposed agreement, however, makes an enormous concession to the French and the Belgians. I know of no historical basis for any French claim to fishing rights in

this area, nor have Ministers ever previously conceded such a claim. In a reply to me on an earlier occasion, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
I have no doubt tht we can come to a satisfactory agreement on that topic with the Germans and the Dutch, who have an interest. The demands that we make will be totally in keeping with what I know are the views of the hon. Gentleman."—[Official Report, 11 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 888.]
I do not know how the French have come into this. They have no historic rights. Yet rights are now being conceded to them.
Moreover, rights are being conceded without any indication of the methods of fishing to be employed. I am extremely worried that modern methods that no country has ever used before will be employed in these waters and that purse seiners will come into what was traditionally a drift net herring fishery. It is like a person has come into one's garden every year for many years to take a few apples from the tree for his family, and then, having not been seen for a year or two, suddenly arriving with a bulldozer intent upon uprooting and selling everything in one's garden on the basis of his historic right to take a few apples from the tree. The Minister must recognise that our herring fishery could be destroyed if fishing methods that were never the subject of historic rights are used under the concessions now being given. The same problem arises in relation to mackerel fishing in Cornwall.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to learn that on 2 December 1981, in reply to a question, the Minister of State defined historic rights as those arising under the 1964 convention. They have nothing to do with the Treaty of Accession.

Mr. Beith: The Treaty of Accession did not confer a historic right. No one can claim that it does. It conferred no historic right where there was none before. I ask the Minister to refer to this and the fishing methods used under the historic rights when he replies to the debate. It is of enormous importance, not only in my own area but in many parts of the contested six to 12 mile area.
I remind the Minister that, with purse seining methods, a trawler from France or Belgium can take its quota from those areas in 24 hours. The quota was intended to provide a livelihood for fishermen over many weeks, using traditional fishing methods. In these areas there is no total allowable catch that we can refer to. No quota can be discussed because there has been a ban on herring fishing for some time. We do not know what proportion of the herring we shall be able to catch when that fishery is reopened. We hope that scientific evidence will enable us to reopen those fishing grounds soon, but we have no basis of knowing what position our fishermen will be in when that happens.
There are related problems further down the coast. A whole new area from Flamborough Head to Hornsea is to be reopened that was not open previously. It is an area like that in my constituency where there are many men engaged in fixed gear fishing whose gear, lobster pots in particular, could not stand the incursion of the trawling methods favoured by some other countries. We cannot allow pelagic trawling to develop in areas where fixed gear is used and where it would, in any case, destroy the herring fishing for good.
Similar access problems exist round the coast. What has happened to the proposal for what was colloquially called a small boat box in the Irish Sea, where scientists are


worried about state of fish stocks and over-fishing has already occurred? Preferential treatment has been given to the French in that area, and in the Morecambe Bay area, but there is no record of French vessels traditionally fishing in the northern part of the area. Why, therefore, has that right to fish been conferred?
I am also worried about the prawn fishery off St. Bee's Head, where stocks could be quickly destroyed. That would not only affect the livelihood of our fishermen, but also the processing firms such as Youngs at Annan, which depend on the prawn stocks.
Sole has been overfished in the Irish Sea. Some of that was done, I suspect, to establish historic rights claims for the negotiations.
The problem has already been raised of the limits on the West coast. Because of the indented coastline, the limits tend not to include large areas of shallow water and fish breeding grounds.
I turn from access to quotas. How can the Commission dare to step up the quotas, against scientific advice, apparently in the hope of sugaring the pill or sweetening the bitter cup being offered to us? Will the Minister comment on what appears to those of us not closely involved in the negotiations, to be a manoeuvre or ruse? How can we pass a fair judgment on the proposals unless there is a fixed percentage for the quotas? How can we judge the future position if it is based on numerical quotas? How can we tell what will happen if the quota is increased? Will the increase go largely to other countries? If the quota is decreased, who will bear the brunt of that reduction?
Will the Minister also consider the problems in the whiting fisheries? New mesh sizes are due to come in for whiting in October, although there is no certainty, and no announcement has been made. Fishermen still do not know what gear to buy. That is another problem to which the Minister must refer on another occasion. Fishermen are anxious that, with the new mesh sizes, the whiting quota will be reached not by normal fishing methods, but by industrial fishing. The whiting will appear as a by-catch of industrial fishing. That industrial fishing will be carried out by the Danes. How can the Minister hope to make progress in dealing with the damaging level of Danish industrial fishing, and the by-catch implications, when he is dependent upon the Danes to reach an agreement? I am not criticising the Minister because I see this as an almost insuperable problem in the final, crucial stage of the negotiations. How can he do something about a type of fishing that is damaging our fisheries when Denmark is the country that is featuring in the deal during its final stages?
There are many other aspects and problems that I shall not deal with because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. However, I emphasise the importance of these issues to our fishing industry. I reassert that our fishermen want to achieve the best possible settlement. They are not disposed to rake over the coals and ascertain who is to blame. They may decide to do that when we have the next general election. For the present, they want the political leaders in every party to concentrate on getting the best possible deal for the industry. That is the commitment I seek from Ministers. I seek answers to questions that worry me as much as they do Ministers.

Mr. David Myles: Nothing is to be gained by being over-pessimistic. Too often we hear the merchants of doom and gloom, so I shall give a few optimistic facts. Some remarkable information was given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Question Time last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) asked
how many United Kingdom registered fishing vessels now fish in United Kingdom inshore waters".—[Official Report, 8 July 1982; Vol. 27, c. 447.]
The reply was that in 1960 there were 7,278 vessels, in 1970 the figure was 5,410, in 1978 it was 6,765, and in 1981 it was 7,106.
Between 1960 and 1970, there was a considerable decline, but the 7,106 vessels in 1981 have a catching capability far beyond the 7,278 that were registered in 1960. Therefore, the message of doom and gloom that our fishing fleet has been sold down the river and that there has been a disaster is not true.
One or two other relevant facts might be of interest to the House. The gross earnings of the Scottish industry to April this year are 15·5 per cent. up on the same period for 1981. That is partly due to increased catches, but prices have been firmer despite the increased landings. In each of the three weeks beginning 15, 22 and 29 May the value of landings at Peterhead exceeded £1 million—a record in each case. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) would have given those figures if he had been fit and in the Chamber.
The value of landings at the port to May this year is no less than 28 per cent. higher than for the same period last year, with average prices up from £23·70 per cwt to £25·10 per cwt. The value of landings for the whole of last year was 13 per cent. higher than for 1980.
It is valuable occasionally to mention some of the good news in the fishing industry. There was no surge of cheap imports in the early part of this year, partly because of the lower value of sterling compared with the early months of 1981.
Fuel prices are now relatively stable, and commercial interest rates, due to the good handling of the economy, are gradually coming down. Nevertheless, one sector of the industry—the pelagic fleet—needs careful scrutiny. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will agree with that remark, although I do not think that he was listening. The pelagic fleet includes the purse seiner, the most efficient method of catching pelagic fish yet devised.

Mr. Donald Stewart: That is the problem.

Mr. Myles: Some, like the right hon. Gentleman, might say that that fishing method should be banned; in fact, I think that he is just about to say it.

Mr. Stewart: I am not about to say it in those terms. I entirely agree that it is the most efficient method of catching fish, but that is the trouble. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, it catches everything. It is disastrous for young stocks as well as for mature fish. Common fisheries policy or not, a time will come when the maritime nations depending on fishing will ban purse seining as a method of fishing.

Mr. Myles: The right hon. Gentleman's interesting observation confirms my view of his view, but I remind


him that the purse seine method does not take everything. Given the size of the net and given the way in which the fish are taken out, the fish are not dead before they are taken into the vessel, so some of them can be released—if it is done properly.
Can the House imagine the outcry there would be in agricultural circles if it were to be said that the combine harvester should be banned and that we should return to the scythe? That illustrates the difference in efficiency between the purse seine netting and the old drift netting for herring to which some hon. Members seem to want to resort. It is because of the very great catching capability, and the skills of the men who man the vessels, that there is a vital need for sensible control to conserve our herring and mackerel stocks.
At present, control is lacking. Too often, last minute decisions are made, such as the postponement of the opening of the Minch herring fishery. Instead of opening at the beginning of this week, it is to open at the beginning of next week. Everyone was geared up to start at the beginning of this week. I hope that that kind of last-minute change in date can be avoided and that we can have better communications, so that the men who do the practical fishing may know exactly what they are doing.
Realistic quotas must be allocated. There is no point in allocating fortnightly quotas which do not allow a vessel to continue to be viable.
Much has been said about the EEC agreement, but I can tell the House that the fishermen of Banffshire—the new president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is a constituent of mine—want to see a common fisheries policy. They know that fish do not respect median lines. They know that they cannot control the Danish fishing methods and the full rape of the seas without a common fisheries policy and without control of the Danish fishermen. They know that we cannot have control of conservation and of restructuring without a proper CFP. They also know that the many problems in the industry, such as that of proper marketing, cannot be solved until we know in what environment we are operating.
I believe that we are to get a CFP, but when we get it it will not be the solution to all the problems of the fishing industry. Many problems will remain to be resolved.
We must ensure that our boatyards, on which the industry depends for repairs and alterations, are kept functioning. That means that there must be a minimum of new boat orders going into the boatyards, so that they can play their part in the restructuring that must come.

Mr. James Johnson: I am glad that the Minister has returned to his seat. He has told us time and again that he consults the industry and, by inference if not by definition, that the industry is going hand in hand with him. I belong to a deep sea port, and I listen to my constituents, such as Tom Boyd. I do not know where the Minister gets his idea that they think that he is doing a good job or that he has done a good job for my city of Hull. I deny that he has.
Earlier, we were told that the Queen—I beg her pardon. We were told that the inmate of No. 10 had been to Aberdeen. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady has also been to Hull, and we have got about as much out of her as Aberdeen must have got, judging by what was said by by hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who opened the debate for the Opposition.
I should have been happier if the Minister had spent less time in dog-fighting about events in the 1960s and 1970s. That is of no use to me. He talked about cod wars and agreements. I was involved at the time, and I attacked the former Labour Minister, who is now dead, for his sell-out over the Oslo agreement. The Minister should not talk about sell-outs and the like, because I fear that in the next six months we shall be in enormous difficulties and that he will accept an agreement—when the Danes come out of their solitude—which will not satisfy us wholly or give us more than 50 per cent. of what we have been expecting for the last year or two.
With regard to quotas, are hon. Members on each side of the Chamber—particularly those from Scotland—satisfied with what is happening? Are the quotas which have so far been seen on paper, as defined by the Commission, generally acceptable to them? I have several qualifications to make. There should be more North Sea cod, and more West of Scotland cod and haddock. The figures for herring, for Scotland and for the North Sea are insufficient.
As an East Yorkshire MP, I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw). He will have Germans fishing for herring up to six miles off North Bay and South Bay in Scarborough in a little over six months' time, at the end of the 11-year agreement. We can talk about that on New Year's morning, perhaps, if I am in Scarborough.
I understand that an agreement is to be made about North Sea herring. What are we to get? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. I understand that the Scots are to get about 30 per cent. of the figure in the tables.
The one thing that I fear is an increase in the TAC—the total allowable catch. Is it correct that the figure of about 270,000 tonnes that was mentioned for herring has now become 370,000 tonnes?

Mr. Millan: Mackerel.

Mr. Johnson: If it is mackerel, I have misread my notes. Is this an expedient to please the Dutch? We are getting back to bad old habits in which totals are increased to please those who have made claims. This makes nonsense of conservation. It may please the Danes and the Dutch, but it is no good to the United Kingdom.
Although the Commission knows that full well, talks are in danger of complete collapse. In its defence the Commission will probably say that even an agreement involving an increase of 100,000 tonnes is better than nothing. This would be monstrous for our fishermen. Our waters would be fished out of existence. I understand that the Belgians, the Danes and the Dutch do not want quotas. They will fish to kingdom come if allowed to do so.
For distant water fishermen in Hull, the position is totally unsatisfactory. We are giving too much to the Germans. Out of a Canadian quota of 12,000 tonnes, I understand that our share is 1,000 tonnes. I understand that the German quota in Greenland is 11,000 tonnes of cod and 42,000 tonnes of redfish. The situation in North Norway is the same. We seem to have come badly out of the negotiations, yet the Minister maintains that we have done well.
The Minister has given insufficient help to Hull and other deep sea ports. Aid has been inadequate, and further contraction of the fleet is inevitable. At one time we had about 50 freezer vessels. Now we have 21. Skippers,


mates and deckhands have had to be sent to Otago in New Zealand to dispose of vessels that are unable to earn a living fishing in our waters.
I believe that the Government have gained as much access as we are likely to get. My neighbours representing constituencies in Yorkshire and the North-East can shout to the heavens, but the Government will not stop Germans from fishing up to the six-mile limit. The Minister may say that it is faute de mieux and that no better arrangements can be made. My case is that the Government have slowly eroded our position. An agreement cannot be forecast. The Danes are in a difficult position as a minority of one. They occupy the chair, but the Government in Copenhagen are weak. I do not believe that they will stand fast. I think that in the autumn they will accept what is proposed by the Nine. It will be argued that some progress, limited or otherwise, must be made.
I shall say no more about enforcement, except to ask whether any hon. Member believes that 40 inspectors can keep in order Belgians, Danes, Dutch and others, never mind ourselves, who are fishing in the North Sea and who wish to make a better living. The North Sea is like the Lebanon. No one in the Lebanon gets in or out as he wishes. It will become the same in the North Sea. The Israelis have moved into the Lebanon to enforce what they call law and order. Who will enforce law and order in the North Sea? We cannot do it. Many of my constituents who are on the dole would say that the Minister should buy about 40 fishing vessels now in St. Andrew's dock, install a six-pounder gun in the bows and stop the poaching that will undoubtedly occur after New Year's Day 1983.

Mr. Speaker: Six hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. There are 35 minutes remaining for debate. It is up to hon. Members.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I shall adhere, Mr. Speaker, to your implied suggestion.
I share some of the apprehensions of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson). We must have attended several dozen fishing debates over the past decade and a half. The hon. Gentleman was less than fair in blaming the Minister for what has led to the present situation. I still have a letter from the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who was at one time in charge of these matters, thanking me for the fact that in those days he received support from hon. Members representing fishing constituencies when he was involved in no less difficult negotiations. I have always tried to support Ministers of whatever party to help achieve the best possible deal.
There is always a danger of fishing debates developing into an argument between pro-Marketeers and anti-Marketeers. I deplore that. I was not especially happy when my party leader took Britain into the Common Market without securing a much better deal for fishing. I was equally unhappy when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) failed to correct in his renegotiations those aspects of matters that I thought had been previously neglected.
Now is the time to be realistic. We share collective responsibility for our entry into the Common Market. It was cheeky of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed

(Mr. Beith), the Liberal spokesman who has now left the Chamber, to say that the voters at the next election would be judging whether this country had achieved a good deal out of the Common Market. The one party that has always boasted of its faithful adherence to the Common Market is the Liberal Party. For the Liberals to start lecturing other people I find unacceptable.
It has been suggested that if Britain had not joined the Common Market we could have enjoyed a 200-mile limit as Norway has asserted. That is not realistic. A 200-mile limit to my fishermen would mean that they could fish in the waters of the Seine in Paris. To talk in terms of a 200-mile limit had we not joined the Common Market is nonsense.
My right hon. Friend has some way to go in the negotiations, and I hope that he will pay heed to speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House and try to obtain further improvements in both access and quotas. But if the negotiations fail we cannot ask "Why did we not do something 15 years ago?" If the negotiations fail, my understanding of international law is that we shall be entitled only to a 3-mile limit excluding fishermen from Community countries in most of our waters and a 6-mile limit for those from outside the EEC. Such a settlement would not be half as good as that which the right hon. Member for Deptford has wished or that my right hon. Friend is trying to obtain.
Without wishing to appear too laudatory, I must say that my right hon. Friend is constrained by the limitations that he inherited from previous Parliaments and he is negotiating for the best possible deal.
I believe he can still make some improvements and I wish him well. We should consider other measures beyond Common Market negotiations as was suggested by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. He said that, whether or not we failed in international negotiations, we should consider providing more aid to our fishing industry in whatever part of the country it may be.
I also have a point to make that directly concerns my constituency in the South-West. The paramount concern of South-West fishermen is the present lack of markets, for reasons that I cannot elaborate on now. It is not the size of the catch but the existence of a market for that catch that enables them to earn a living. The Secretary of State and his colleagues should consider those problems at the same time as trying to obtain the best international deal that they can.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The Secretary of State suggested that the Opposition had changed their position on the negotiations. That is completely untrue. Our policy has been consistent since we were in Government. We want an adequate share of the fish, adequate arrangements for preferential access and effective conservation measures.
In the negotiations, we have not yet obtained an adequate share of the fish. Some way must be found to chop the Danish quotas. The large amount of industrial fishing that is carried out by Denmark is inconsistent with sensible management of fishing resources. Of course the problem is difficult and one recognises the dependence on industrial fishing of Jutland and similar places but means must be found to compensate industrial fishermen and reduce their share of the quotas.
If any agreement is reached on the negotiations, it is vital that justice should he done to the legitimate claims of our fishermen for a dominant share of the herring in our waters, especially in the North Sea.
As to access, the Minister's comment about our historic rights within the Irish 12-mile limit is no justification for abandoning our position on the exclusive 12-mile limit. The quotas and the distribution of our share of the fish do not do justice to the dominant preference for which we were aiming within the 12 to 50-mile area. The Government have adequately protected the important pout box that we hope will remain for ever, but there are grounds for anxiety that too much has been conceded on the Shetland and Orkney box.
In an earlier debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) spoke about Scotland's wider interests on the subject, but no one would deny that preference must be given to the local coastal communities for fishing in their waters. It is a cause of anxiety that we are talking not only about 50 licences for French vessels, but about a maximum of 50 vessels fishing at any one time. Far too much is likely to be conceded.
As to effective conservation, I hope that the Minister of State can say something about paper fish. The proposal would be a deplorable start to a policy which, if it achieves anything, must achieve the effective conservation and development of fish stocks. If agreement were to be achieved at the price of a high total allowable catch for mackerel, that would lead to the decimation of stocks. I and other hon. Members have said that we could decimate mackerel stocks in the same way as we decimated our herring stocks.
A few months ago we talked about a package of aid that we believed was imminent. Are the Government holding back that package as a sweetener to sell a Common Market deal that is inadequate in all other respects? Although some fish prices have become firmer, there is a desperate need for additional aid. The Minister said that the Government have given more cash aid to the fishing industry than the previous Government. That is true, but the need for the aid is now much greater. The Labour Government were always prepared to bring forward schemes to aid the industry.
What will happen if there is no agreement? Is it not time that we spelt out our determination to implement a national plan to maintain our interests should no agreement be reached before the end of the year?
The Government issued a statement this week detailing arrangements for the reopening of herring fishing in the West of Scotland. The Minister will be aware of the chaos last year when thousands of tons of prime fish were turned into fish meal. We now have a tremendous opportunity to re-establish herring fishing in Scotland. I refer not only to catches but to a national onshore programme with Government aid to develop processing and marketing. In my constituency and throughout Scotland hundreds of onshore jobs have been lost. Fish catches are leaving Britain only to be reimported from Eastern European countries and others. We had long arguments and discussions about that in debates on the Fisheries Act 1981 which set up the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I am glad that the Government are taking advantage of the powers that we persuaded them to take on the licensing of klondykers, but they must go further. We must eventually curtail and eliminate factory ships and klondykers. All the

fish caught in our waters should be landed and processed in our ports and transported from them. That means real wealth and real jobs which are vital.
That, above all, is the importance of fishing to our people. It is part of our heritage. We are talking about the development of an indigenous industry. When North Sea oil runs dry and many of the fancy new industries to which the Government attach so much importance have ceased to be relevant, our people will depend on fishing, which will provide many valuable jobs.

Mr. John Townend: I wish to deal briefly with access and historical rights as they affect fishermen in Bridlington. The Government stated that the proposals now being negotiated are based on the historic rights that were established before, not since, we joined the Community and that no agreement would destroy the position that the Government have persuaded our fellow Community members to accept. If that was absolutely true, it would be acceptable to the fishermen of Bridlington, but unfortunately, in the proposals that were put forward at the previous two meetings of the Council of Ministers, there seems to have been a deviation from that principle.
It is proposed that the French will be granted rights to fish for herring between six and 12 miles in the area from Flamborough Head to Spurn Point. That is an area in which the Bridlington fleet earns a substantial part of its livelihood and in which my fishermen were expecting to have an exclusive 12-mile zone. There has been no record of the French fishing for herring in the area. Indeed, between Flamborough Head and Hornsea no such historic rights were included in the 1964 London agreement and as far as I know there is no record of the historic rights granted to the French being exercised between Hornsea and Spurn Point.
Indeed, I believe that the only foreign boats to have fished off that part of the coast have been Dutch and German and they played a significant part in fishing out the herring stocks. My fishermen cannot understand why the French should now be given rights that they have never had before. The only conclusion that one can come to is that they have been given as a sop to the French. The word going round Bridlington is that my right hon. Friend the Minister has managed to negotiate a better deal for Scottish fishermen. I do not want to stand in the way of a better deal for them, but my fishermen strongly object to their interests being sacrificed in this way. They have asked me to make it quite clear that the proposal is completely unacceptable to the Bridlington fishermen.
I therefore earnestly request my right hon. Friend to ensure in future negotiations that those bogus rights—which have never been exercised—are excluded from any agreement. My fishermen make two important points that are similar to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw). First, they say that, although quotas can be amended from year to year, access rights, once agreed, will last for at least one generation. Secondly, between Flamborough Head and Spurn Point the water is mainly less than 12 fathoms deep. Given the large nets used by modern French trawlers, they will extend from the surface to the sea bed and will scrape up everything living, or swimming, in the sea.
Under the conservation regulations the fishermen are supposed to throw back fish that are not herring. However,


hon. Members will agree that in the process many of the fish die and untold damage can be done to the stocks on which the livelihood of my fishermen depend. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that, whatever the regulations, they are never complied with 100 per cent. and that often, in practice, the fishermen will not throw back any fish.
My fishermen appreciate the efforts that Ministers have made to achieve a system of conservation that will be independently supervised. My fishermen think that they can live with the quotas that are now being talked about, although they would always like more. If my right hon. Friend can only close the wide gap, for which there is no historic justification, on the East Coast—mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—which allows the French to fish for herring in an area in which they have not fished before, I am sure that the fishermen in my constituency will support the acceptance of a settlement along the lines that the Government are moving towards.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The three hon. Members who wish to speak can help each other by taking only five minutes each. Hon. Members can say a lot in five minutes, or at least I can.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I shall do my best to conclude my speech by 6.18 pm. I had a long speech to make about Hull, and unfortunately kissing the Blarney stone for five minutes will act as a considerable discipline in cutting my remarks.
If I give hon. Members the figures, they will see my argument. In 1972, 88,686 tonnes of wet fish were landed at Hull. In 1981, 15,274 tonnes were landed. In 1972, 43,106 tonnes of frozen fish were landed, but in 1981 the figure was 9,971 tonnes. That is a total of 131,792 tonnes of fish in 1972, compared with 25,245 tonnes in 1981. I shall now give the figures for the number of vessels in the Hull Fishing Vessels Association. In 1972 there were 59 freshers, compared with none in 1982. In 1972, there were 35 freezers, compared with 21 in 1982. In that same year there were nine seiners compared with none in 1982. Therefore, in 1972 there were 103 vessels compared with 21 vessels today. Of those 21 freezer trawlers, only 11 are currently fishing. Five of them have been taken into service in the Falkland Islands and of those four were operational fishing vessels.
That shows the decline of the deep sea fleet and of the port of Hull in the past decade. It is true that we suffered a great loss and a great blow as a result of the loss of access to Icelandic waters, but the loss of other third territory waters has affected us far more. The Hague agreement was a gentleman's agreement and was not binding on anyone. However, there was to be compensation for Fleetwood, Hull and Grimsby for their loss in the Icelandic waters. We have never received that compensation.
Let us consider the arrangements that have been made for fishing the seven main species of fish in non-EEC waters. Since the last abortive negotiations, the Government have lost or conceded over 5 per cent. In the earlier negotiations the figure was 37·9 per cent. but it is

now now 32·8 per cent. In that same period, the percentage available to the Federal Republic of Germany has increased from 45·2 per cent. to 49 per cent. We are entitled to know whether there is to be no future for vessels fishing out of the port of Hull. However, if something is to be negotiated for Hull in the deep waters and if Hull is to be kept alive as a fishing port, the quotas—particularly outside EEC waters—must give us a chance.
There are 800 to 900 unemployed fishermen in my constituency. If that figure is multiplied by six, one has the land equivalent. As a direct result of the decline in the fishing industry several thousand people are unemployed. Those men may have voted Tory or Labour, but they were not responsible for the loss of access to Icelandic waters or for the EEC negotiations and the resulting agreements. Therefore, they are entitled to compensation. However, the Government have given no sign that they are prepared to say that the three ports are a special case. They have not said that they are not to blame and that the Government are responsible for compensating them for their loss and for the result of our EEC membership. The Government have not given any positive aid to those cities to retrain fishermen, restructure the fleet, and create new job opportunities. None of those aids has been forthcoming from the Government.
The port of Hull is entitled to expect help in compensation for what it has lost. No aid has been given. Unfortunately, the Minister is not in the Chamber but he was most upset when I accused him of blackmail. I said that he was blackmailing the industry, and in its paper the industry seemed to agree that that was so. However, this is a question not of blackmail but of complete indifference on the part of the Government. Even though the Prime Minister went to Hull and gave her promises, she has given us nothing, the fleet nothing, the unemployed fishermen in Hull nothing and the factory and process workers nothing. We deserve something better.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The debate has been well informed. All of us were fascinated to witness the political exchange at the beginning between my right hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) about who was responsible for the crisis and whether or not the EEC proposals were satisfactory.
If a Labour Government had suggested the proposals as the basis for negotiation the Conservatives would have torn them apart, as the Labour Party is today trying to tear the Government apart. It is wrong to throw quotations back at colleagues, but as recently as June 1978, when there seemed to be a suspicion that the Labour Minister intended to settle for a 12-mile limit, there was an uproar on our Benches. The Conservative spokesman said:
The Conservative Party remains firmly of the belief that a 50-mile exclusively controlled zone is the most practicable and best available way in which to get what we believe are our just deserts."—[Official Report, 15 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1245.]
I quote that, not to praise the Labour Party or to criticise the Conservative Party, but to make it clear that if this agreement had been proposed by a Labour, Liberal or Scottish Nationalist Government we would have been outraged.
The Government have a special responsibility because a Conservative Government put us in an appalling negotiating position as a result of the Treaty of Accession


which made it clear that there would be a problem in 1982. We have an obligation, because the alternative would have been the 200-mile limit now enjoyed by Norway.
It has been said that it is five minutes to midnight in terms of negotiations. We have a right to know the Government's firm view of what will happen if no agreement is reached. It worries me that questions to Ministers have been shoved aside time after time. We have been told "We have made our position clear." The matter has been raised repeatedly in negotiations with the fishing industry. The industry is constantly told "We must have an agreement, because if we do not get one by 1 January next year fishing up to our beaches will be possible." The Minister shakes his head, but that was said to me at lunchtime today by people who met the Minister this morning. I was told that by Laurie Gilson, the chief executive of the South-East of England fishermen's organisation, on whose word I would stake my life. It is wrong to try to persuade the fishermen to agree on that basis when no such statement is made in the House of Commons.
For the sake of the fishermen, whose lives and jobs depend upon us, for the sake of our housewives and for the honour of Parliament, the Government should say, on the best legal advice, what will happen on 1 January if there is no agreement.
Hon. Members have referred to combine harvesters and scythes. We must consider historic rights in that context. The argument is that 20 years ago the French operated one or two boats in our waters and that 10 years ago an agreement on historic rights was reached. What would happen if my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) told me that I had a right to reap some corn from his farm? If I appeared for 10 years running with a scythe, but turned up the next year with a combine harvester, my hon. Friend would take a different attitude to historic rights. That is what the fishermen of Southend and the South-East are worried about. Historic rights are based on limited performance and older boats. Today fishermen use the equivalent of the combine harvester.
If historic rights cannot be negotiated out, why can we not negotiate to phase them out? That would form the basis of an honourable agreement. We are told that historic rights cannot be avoided, but we could state that we aim to phase out historic rights. The inshore fleet might be convinced about a settlement if it contained a firm proposal to phase out historic rights over five or seven years.
In each debate until the last the Minister said that he would not agree to proposals without the industry's full consent. The Minister now talks about majority consensus. There is a big difference. Is the Government's view still that proposals will not be accepted without the industry's support? The Scots will probably be happy because they have a 12-mile limit, with two exceptions. The company boats will probably be pleased with the catch, but the English inshore fleet has to face the possibility of a six-mile limit. In the Southend area there would be a six-mile limit with almost unlimited access to the French beyond that.
The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has informed the Minister
that the proposals do not constitute the basis of an acceptable and honourable settlement, and reaffirmed an exclusive twelve-mile limit around the entire British coast to be a minimum provision".

That makes it clear that there cannot be a successful, viable English inshore fleet based on the present proposals.
I hope that the Government will make it clear that there is no question of an agreement without the full support of the NFFO and the English inshore fleet. I hope that there will be no attempt to use Government or taxpayers' cash, or so-called Common Market cash, to persuade people to sign a deal which will not provide security for the English fishing industry in the long term.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is no occasion and there is no time for political archaeology about who said what on the Common Market, but it is the time to ask whether we can with honour accept the emerging settlement. I started with high hopes of the Ministers. They are two wets cast abroad on the briny deep, perhaps for being wet. One of the Ministers was anxious to emulate the John Bull stance of his predecessor. The Minister of State has the interests of the fishing industry at heart. Both Ministers are honourable men. Yet the British industry is being betrayed and the English fishing industry is about to be scuttled.
Clear commitments have been made from the Dispatch Box and in the Government's manifesto. They were firm and strong at the start and yet the Government amendment now dilutes everything and has little to offer the industry. I am particularly worried about ports such as Grimsby, Fleetwood, Lowestoft, Whitby and Scarborough, because they will suffer mainly from the agreement that is emerging.
The marketing agreement, as it emerges, involves a system of reference prices 'which bear no relation to the cost of catching the fish. The policing system will be inadequate, because it will still depend upon the individual States enforcing their own measures. In many ports there is a conspiracy to cheat between the authorities and the fisherman. Forty Euro-inspectors will not be able to control that. The weight put on that policing mechanism by Ministers and officials cannot be borne. The agreement itself is unsatisfactory. We have granted historic rights, but not for historic methods. What might have been caught with the equivalent of a scythe 20 years ago is now being caught by what amounts to combine harvesters in fishing terms.
How will we enforce these historic rights? Will we Act as the Norwegians act against us and demand regular reports and impose stringent controls? We shall probably not do that. Yet if we do not, limits will be violated, and our policing will be a laughing stock.
We have granted historic rights where they do not exist. French fishermen now have the right to catch herring between Flamborough and Spurn Point, where French fishermen have never been seen by our fishermen. In that area there are 5,000 lobster pots and all kinds of gill nets. That is between six and 12 miles off the Yorkshire coast. Every herring in the North Sea breeds there and yet it is to be laid open to rape, to powerful French fishing vesels using subsidised fuel. They will be allowed to take the bread from the mouths of our fishermen, to take the fish from the nets, and the pots and the nets with them, as they trawl those waters.
The Irish Sea is a disaster zone. The Minister started by telling the industry that the French had no claim in the Irish Sea, but they have been conceded substantial claims,


to the detriment of the fishermen of Fleetwood. Noel Coward observed that there was always something fishy about the French, and there is something fishy about the bilateral agreement which the Government have negotiated with the French. The Minister may congratulate himself on putting out other nations, but many of those nations would have had to go anyway because of the restrictions on beam trawling, so he has no cause for congratulation.
Even the quotas that we are allowed are being distorted by this political desire to create more paper fish to satisfy everybody. The North Sea whiting catch has been upped by 48 per cent. by the Commission, and Irish Sea whiting has been upped by 51 per cent. West Coast cod total allowable catches have been put up by 70 per cent. and rock or haddock by 80 per cent. These are paper fish, which will mean that the fishermen will have to fish far more intensively for longer periods to catch the same amount of fish, because conservation is not being respected, and the catches will go down.
Even the agreement that is emerging can be altered by a majority vote, because the Commission's management committee can, by a qualified majority—which I take to mean two-thirds—change what has happened. If that is not then changed again by the Council, again on a qualified majority, the decision comes into force. If the Scottish industry accepts this deal, it should recognise that Judas Iscariot at least received his 30 pieces of silver. This deal can be taken back by the Commission's management committee at any time by a qualified majority. This is not in any way a permanent settlement.
The Minister is selling out and he knows that he is doing so. His claim that he is consulting and carrying the industry with him is his fig-leaf in these negotiations. He is not carrying the English industry, which is the one that wants compensation for the loss of the Icelandic waters, and which it was supposed to get from these negotiations but has not.
One of my hon. Friends in an earlier debate likened the Minister's tactics over aid to blackmail. It is blackmail. Aid is being dangled before the industry, but it is not being given anything. The impression is created that the continuity of aid is contingent upon the industry's acceptance of this kind of settlement. Prices may be up slightly for certain species, but the industry is crippled with a burden of debt that will prevent it surviving unless it has the guarantee of continuity of aid that will keep it going to catch the fish, whatever fish it gets.
We started out on these negotiations with the Minister telling us what he was going to achieve and holding out prospects of what he would get in the negotiations. He began as the General Galtieri of the fishing industry, bravely telling us what he would do. He went into battle with those claims and is now coming back, in dribs and drabs, and the result is that he has achieved nothing.
The Minister is finishing up as the Lieutenant Commander Alfredo Astiz—the man who surrendered South Georgia to the British without a shot being fired—of the fishing industry. That is what the Minister is doing in these negotiations—surrendering without effective pressure on our partners in unilateral deals. The British industry is being sold down the river, particularly the English industry, by that technique.
There is, however, this difference between the Minister and Astiz. Astiz did not blackmail his troops into accepting the surrender, nor did he pretend to have brought back peace with honour. Astiz did not take credit for a famous victory and congratulate himself on how clever he had been when he surrendered.

Mr. Bruce Millan: This is an important debate because it could be the last debate on fishing that we have before settlement is reached by the Minister on a common fisheries policy. Like the previous debate on 9 December 1981, it has been provided out of Supply time—Opposition time.
There is widespread apprehension not only in the House, or on the Opposition side of the House, but in the industry, that the Minister may be about to settle on a wholly unsatisfactory basis. There is a well-founded suspicion that he would have settled at the last meeting of the Ministers if the Danes had not stopped him. The Minister, in a blustering way, gave a historical account that was not only absurd but dishonest. I shall not deny all his points because I have not time to go over the whole of the history that he provided for us. He was not involved in fishery matters at that time.
The Minister made a sneering reference to the words of the motion that deal with quotas. He ought to know that that part of the motion was taken word for word from a similar motion pressed by his hon. Friend the Minister of State as recently as 26 November 1980. The Government have changed their views over the last couple of years, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) pointed out. I recommend that the Minister reads his hon. Friend's speech.
As to the Minister's reference to what should have happened at the time of the extension to 200 miles, and the attitude of the Government to the Hague agreement and the 200-mile limit, I reread the Second Reading debate of 3 December 1976, when the Labour Government introduced the Bill extending the limit to 200 miles. The Minister is nodding his head, as if he had read the debate as well. If he did so, then what he said to the House this afternoon was dishonest, because he will have seen that the Minister of State who is to wind up welcomed in unqualified terms what the Labour Government were doing at that time.
I shall not embarrass the Minister of Stateby repeating what he said about 50-mile exclusive limits and the rest, because he repeated these claims on subsequent occasions. The Government have, in the amendment to tonight's motion and in that of last December, ratted on their obligations and undertakings, given both when in Opposition and in the early years of the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman's tactic is to try to put the responsibility for the settlement on the shoulders of an industry that is becoming more and more apprehensive about the deadline of 31 December 1982. What the Minister is doing as regards consultation is no different from what happened under the Labour Government. What is different is his dishonest attempt to put the burden of responsibility for reaching a settlement on the back of the industry. We shall hold him responsible for any settlement that he brings to the House. On present evidence, that settlement will be unsatisfactory.
There has been some progress on some of the less important issues, but there was also progress under the


Labour Government on conservation, the North Sea herring ban and the Norway pout box. The right hon. Gentleman gave a wholly dishonest account of the record of the Labour Government in these respects.
This afternoon the Minister tried, in a slippery passage of his speech, to confuse historic rights on the 12-mile limit, as the House has normally understood them, arising from the London convention, with rights granted at the time of the Treaty of Accession. These two matters are different. If we compare what is in the Commission document with what is in the London convention, we find that there has been little improvement on the London convention. As hon. Gentlemen from both sides of the House have pointed out, if we take the London convention and the accession treaty together, the position is considerably worse under the proposals, particularly the position of England.
It is significant that the right hon. Gentleman is apparently not willing to provide maps to the House so that we can judge some of his claims. It is clear that Scotland comes out better than England on these proposals. Therefore, the Opposition and the Scottish fishing industry say that the industry stands united, Scotland and England together. We shall not be bought off with Scotland having a rather more favourable agreement than England. I wish to make that point completely clear, because, just as the Minister is trying to put responsibility on the industry, he is also increasingly trying to play one section of the industry against the other. We have a united industry. We hope that it will remain united, and we shall look after the interests of all fishermen, English and Scottish.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that my relationship with the industry is such that I do not say that I want it to approve an agreement? The right hon. Gentleman said that we were playing off one part of the industry against the other. Is he aware that before and during every negotiation, at every meeting that I have had with the industry the whole of the industry has been together?

Mr. Millan: I hope that the whole industry remains together. If it remains together, the settlement that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accept will not be reached because the industry believes that it is unsatisfactory.
The 12 to 50-mile limit has been completely abandoned by the Government. We now have a formula to deal with dependent communities. There is a vast difference between local fishing arrangements settled nationally by the United Kingdom within the context of a satisfactory overall common fisheries policy, which is acceptable, and using local fishing arrangements as a substitute for either an acceptable settlement in terms of the 12 to 50-mile zone or a satisfactory overall common fisheries policy. What is available with regard to the Shetland box is not acceptable compared with the necessity to get overall control and satisfactory access within a wider band than the 12 miles. We are not even getting satisfactory access arrangements within the 12-mile limit.
Who will control the fishing within the Shetland box? The number of boats for other countries is unsatisfactory. The Commission's proposed regulations set out the numbers in terms of the numbers of boats that can fish simultaneously at any time, which is unsatisfactory. It gives us no real control. There is no real preference for

Scottish or British fishermen. We need licensing arrangements with named vessels attached to them. I hope that the Minister will answer that point.
The quotas are constantly changing. Since the Government first laid the documents before the House there have been revised proposals from the Commission. They mean that the Commission is adding to the total allowable catches to provide artificially inflated figures above the scientists' recommendations so that it can ostensibly allocate higher catch quotas to individual nations. What is important for the United Kingdom is the percentage of the total catch of the main species available to the United Kingdom. The increased total allowable catches of mackerel proposed by the Commission are accompanied by lower percentage catches for the United Kingdom fishing industry. What is worse, the Commission document states that those percentages, once agreed, will form a permanent basis for allocations in future.
The Minister of State will remember, if his right hon. Friend does not, that the Labour Government made proposals not only for much more satisfactory quota figures but for an arrangement whereby the percentages would escalate over the years. At the moment there are unsatisfactory percentage figures. I hope that the Minister of State will give us the figures. There is no guarantee that they will increase, but there is a danger that they will decrease in percentage terms, and certainly in absolute terms in future, if they are based on artificial total allowable catches, which do not adhere to the scientific recommendations and which therefore reintroduce the danger of overfishing.
The industry is worried about many matters, including mackerel. There is also the percentage proposed for herring on the West coast of Scotland, which is lower than allocated last year and considerably lower than the historical performance of the United Kingdom fishing industry. We agree that there should be no total allowable catches at the moment for herring in the northern section of the North Sea, but a satisfactory settlement will have to include the percentage allocations to be available in future when the fishery is ultimately reopened. Without that, the settlement will not be satisfactory.
The Minister said nothing about the plea by the industry for additional aid. I hope that his right hon. Friend the Minister of State will say something about that. Nothing has been said about that, although the Scottish industry made a proposal to the Government at least six months ago. The Minister has said nothing about what is to happen after 31 December. Brave words have been said about not allowing fishing up to the beaches, but, in the absence of a settlement, that is what the legal position will be on 31 December. We want to know what the Government will do about that.
Despite the brave words and the bluster from the right hon. Gentleman, who is a guilty man in these negotiations, after three years and with the deadline only a few months away, the Government have failed on the main issues of access, quotas and a satisfactory common fisheries policy. What is worse, they are trying to dodge their responsibilities and put the responsibility on to the shoulders of the industry. The Government are the guilty men. If they fail to produce a satisfactory settlement, we shall condemn there and vote against them. We shall also


vote against them tonight because of the shifty and dishonest way in which the right hon. Gentleman opened the debate.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The debate, and not least the speech of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), has been marked by considerable misconceptions and misunderstandings, not only of the situation that faces the fishing industry, but of what has been negotiated and what is to be negotiated in crucial matters affecting the industry.

Mr. Buchan: Tell us.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. He does not wait to hear the real arguments, because he does not want to hear them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) said, not all is gloom and doom in the fishing industry. One would think that it was, judging by what Opposition Members have said. They almost want the negotiations to fail. That is understandable, considering their attitude towards Europe. As one who has the interests of the fishing industry at heart, what I cannot forgive is that they are prepared to sacrifice the long-term interests of the fishing industry for short-term political expediency.
All is not gloom and doom. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said that the Government had done nothing for Hull. He knows in his heart that that is not true. He knows that the deep sea industry has received a major part of the operating aids that have been given to the industry in the past two years. He cannot deny that.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman should take a little of the medicine instead of becoming indignant. He knows of the schemes and of the special aid that we gave for exploratory voyages. Vessels from Hull benefited from those schemes. The fact that the scheme was given to Hull was criticised by other ports, but we did so because we believed that there was a case for it. Last, but not least, does the hon. Gentleman want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to take back from Hull the money that is available under the urban aid programme, which Hull has used to assist its fishing industry? If he wants that, let him say so.

Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the number of fishermen has decreased from 9,000 to 1,000, and why the numbr of freezers is down to 10, while the Dutch are building 10 or 12 new ones? Will he also explain why we are receiving only a miserable sum of urban aid when there is so much unemployment and dereliction in the fishing industry?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall be delighted to explain that to the House, because I was about to deal with that point.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said that the fishing fleet was in decline, and he used other wild phrases. Certain sections of the fleet have declined. For example, the deep sea section has declined, but when

did that happen? The majority of that decline occurred before 1976, and it happened not because of the Common Market, but because of the Icelandic extension to 200 miles.
I am prepared to argue reasonably and sensibly about some of these issues. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, that we should not go over the past, but should look to the future and consider how we should plan for that future. There cannot be credibility in the criticism of the way that we have handled these issues, when some of the Opposition's arguments have no basis in fact and are a complete misrepresentation of what has taken place.

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I cannot give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I have been given a short time in which to reply, and I have not yet begun to deal with what the right hon. Gentleman said.
The major decline in the deep sea fleet took place before 1976. There were 6,740 vessels in 1976 in total, and 7,351 in 1981. The biggest increase has been in the inshore fleet, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff referred.
There are a number of other misconceptions. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North used the example of Norway—"If only we had followed Norway's example; if only Britain were not a member of the European Community." That is another misconception and, indeed, a prejudice. If that is the kind of argument on which the Opposition's case is based, everything else that they say lacks credibility. That is a completely false argument. The Norwegian fishing industry is the most heavily subsidised in Western Europe. The subididies amount to about £150 million and are several factors above what the French industry receives.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wish that the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) knew more about the fishing industry because if he did I should listen to him. Perhaps the way in which he speaks about the industry on television demonstrate better his knowledge of the industry.
Norway elected to be outside the EEC. Its fishing industry receives far more aid than any other fishing industry in Europe, but it is an industry that has had to carry through the most radical and painful restructuring and a reduction of the capacity of its fleet. Is that the kind of opportunity that being outside the EEC gives?
When we were negotiating in Brussels on the last round only a fortnight ago, where were the Norwegians? They were in the corridors of the Council room, because they knew that they had to be in on those negotiations. They had to be there, because we share stocks with them and they want opportunities in our waters. Because the Norwegians did not join the Community, they could not opt out. We all have to share the waters of Northern Europe. We are all in this together, and the fact that the Norwegians had to send a delegation to Brussels demonstrates that it is not possible to opt out of these negotiations.

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is another misconception. The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) asked why we had not taken into account in the


negotiations the Western Isles fishery plan, but only the box off Orkney and Shetland. Almost the whole of the area of that plan falls within the United Kingdom base line, and therefore it is not affected directly by the negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is able to consider that plan on its merits outside the negotiations. Therefore, that is another red herring and another misconception to which the House has been treated tonight.
The biggest misconception of all is about control. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that control is, unhappily, inadequate at present. One of the reasons why we have over-fishing and why we have not been able to have effective conservation is that we cannot get control. The only way in which we can be sure of achieving control is on an international basis. All that the right hon. Member for the Western Isles has done tonight is to weep crocodile tears over the consequences of a lack of control, when, already, in the negotiations—he did not mention this—we have agreement on control on an international basis. Agreement on a control regulation will come into effect at the end of the year even if we do not achieve a renegotiation of the common fisheries policy.
The right hon. Member for Craigton completely misrepresented the role of his party in the negotiations. He has shown a happy faculty of forgetting what happened in 1976 over The Hague agreement. Reference has been made to the confused way in which the herring fishery was opened a year ago. I share the House's horror that that fishery had to be opened in that way, but that happened because under the 1976 Hague agreement the Labour Government had given away the right of the United Kingdom Government to take their own national conservation measures on a unilateral basis.

Mr. Millan: That is absurd. The Minister has four minutes left in which to speak. When will he come to the main issues of the debate—the limits, access and quotas?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is not absurd. It is true. The same is true of the 200-mile limit. I supported the right hon. Gentleman's Government in extending the limit to 200 miles. Having negotiated the rights to have it, the whole thing was then thrown away in The Hague agreement for nothing in return, unlike the way in which Ireland negotiated. Therefore, I need no lectures from the Opposition about how to do these things.
The right hon. Gentleman failed to mention what we have already achieved in the improvements that we have made. We have achieved a considerable improvement in quotas in recent days. We have achieved it with regard to the Irish Sea, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) referred. We have achieved it with regard to whiting and plaice in that area, which is very important to the inshore fishermen in his constituency. We have achieved improvements with regard to haddock in the North Sea.
I can tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), whom I welcome back to the House, that, with regard to deep sea opportunities, we have a new quota for Greenland. It was originally 2,500 tonnes of cod, but it has been increased to 3,500 tonnes—an improvement that will directly benefit our fishermen.
We have made progress on industrial fishing. In the original proposals—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) was correct to raise the matter—the effects

of the Danish by-catch industrial fishing was unacceptable to us. They would have been taking a major part of the total allowable limit. We have achieved a considerable reduction in the amount to be allowed in the total by-catch. That is of interest to Britain and our fishing industry, which will benefit in terms of catches for human consumption.
I know that hon. Members are worried about access. My right hon. Fiend the Secretary of State dealt with some of the problems. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) are particularly worried about this issue. We are still negotiating on those matters. We need to be very careful, particularly over conservation measures in the breeding grounds where spawning takes place. I discussed this as recently as today with interested fishermen.
No solid or credible views have been put forward by the Labour Party. Opposition Members have completely ignored what we have achieved. We have transferred into Community conservation measures what the previous Government achieved only nationally. We now have the force of the Community, and the measures are much more powerful. Secondly, we have improved marketing, which is also important for the industry's returns. Thirdly, as I said, we have made enormous progress on control. Our job is to get the best deal for the industry—

Mr. Michael Cocks: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 286.

Division No. 277]
[7 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Adams, Allen
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davidson, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Benn. Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Dixon, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Frank


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dormand, Jack


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Douglas, Dick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Dunlop, John


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Eadie, Alex


Campbell, Ian
Eastham, Ken


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Canavan, Dennis
Ellis, R. (NE D"[...]sh're)


Cant, R. B.
English, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, John (Newton)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ewing, Harry


Clarke, Thomas C'b'dge,A'rie
Faulds, Andrew


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Field, Frank


Cohen, Stanley
Flannery, Martin


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Cowans, Harry
Ford, Ben


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Forrester, John






Foulkes, George
Pavitt, Laurie


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Golding, John
Prescott, John


Graham, Ted
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Race, Reg


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Radice, Giles


Hardy, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Richardson, Jo


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Homewood, William
Robertson, George


Hooley, Frank
Robinson, G, (Coventry NW)


Hoyle, Douglas
Rooker, J. W.


Huckfield, Les
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ryman, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sever, John


Janner, Hon Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Short, Mrs Renée


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Soley, Clive


Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Lestor, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Litherland, Robert
Stoddart, David


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger


McCartney, Hugh
Strang, Gavin


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Straw, Jack


McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tilley, John


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tinn, James


McKelvey, William
Torney, Tom


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


McNamara, Kevin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McTaggart, Robert
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


McWilliam, John
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Marshall, (G'gow S'ton)
Weetch, Ken


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Welsh, Michael


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
White, Frank R.


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitehead, Phillip


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Whitlock, William


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Molyneaux, James
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Winnick, David


Morton, George
Woodall, Alec


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Woolmer, Kenneth


Newens, Stanley
Wright, Sheila


O'Neill, Martin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Palmer, Arthur
Tellers for the Ayes:


Park, George
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe and


Parker, John
Mr. Ron Leighton.


Parry, Robert



NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Bendall, Vivian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Benyon, Thomas (A'don)


Ancram, Michael
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)


Arnold, Tom
Best, Keith


Aspinwall, Jack
Bevan, David Gilroy


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Biggs-Davison, Sir John





Blackburn, John
Greenway, Harry


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grylls, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Hon A.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brinton, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Brotherton, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hayhoe, Barney


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Heddle, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Henderson, Barry


Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.
Hicks, Robert


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Budgen, Nick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bulmer, Esmond
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hooson, Tom


Butler, Hon Adam
Hordern, Peter


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chapman, Sydney
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Churchill, W. S.
Irvine, Bryant Godman


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby


Clegg, Sir Walter
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cockeram, Eric
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cope, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Corrie, John
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Costain, Sir Albert
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cranborne, Viscount
Knight, Mrs Jill


Critchiey, Julian
Knox, David


Crouch, David
Lamont, Norman


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lang, Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Denshore
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lee, John


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Eggar, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Elliott, Sir William
Loveridge, John


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, Richard


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lyell, Nicholas


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fell, Sir Anthony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Madel, David


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Major, John


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Marland, Paul


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Forman, Nigel
Mawby, Ray


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Marcus
Mayhew, Patrick


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Mellor, David


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moate, Roger


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodlad, Alastair
Montgomery, Fergus


Gorst, John
Moore, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)






Murphy, Christopher
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Myles, David
Speed, Keith


Neale, Gerrard
Speller, Tony


Needham, Richard
Spence, John


Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Neubert, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Normanton, Tom
Sproat, Iain


Nott, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin


Onslow, Cranley
Stainton, Keith


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Osborn, John
Stanley, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Steen, Anthony


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Stewart, A.(E Pentrewshire)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Parris, Matthew
Stokes, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Tapsell, Peter


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Percival, Sir Ian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pink, R. Bonner
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Porter, Barry
Thompson, Donald


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Thornton, Malcolm


Prior, Rt Hon James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trippier, David


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Viggers, Peter


Renton, Tim
Wakeham, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Waldegrave, Hon William


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Walker, B. (Perth)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Watson, John


Rossi, Hugh
Wells, Bowen


Rost, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Royle, Sir Anthony
Wheeler, John


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Whitney, Raymond


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Cohn (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Richard
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shersby, Michael
Younger, Rt Hon George


Silvester, Fred



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Smith, Dudley
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the further progress achieved by Her Majesty's Government in the search for a satisfactory revised common fisheries policy, particularly in relation to conservation, marketing and control; confirms that such a policy must maintain the need to secure an exclusive 12-mile limit, preference outside 12 miles to protect particularly dependent fishing communities, adequate quotas for the United Kingdom, effective conservation measures and a community-wide system of enforcement as well as improvements in the marketing arrangements hitherto in force; and urges Her Majesty's Government vigorously to continue, in consultation with the fishing industry, the search for a solution on the outstanding issues.

Orders of the Day — Greater London Council (Money) Bill (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It will be recalled that on Second Reading of the Bill some hon. Members used a blocking motion and a Division in a deliberate attempt to defeat it. I understand that there may be a similar attempt tonight, although I see another motion on the Order Paper which is supported by some Conservative Members. The Government did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading, and the blocking device has been used in the past to ensure that London's affairs are debated in the Chamber. Most hon. Members consider it unsatisfactory that such a parliamentary device should be used to obtain time to debate the affairs of the capital city. It causes much difficulty and many problems. I am one of those who think that this is a wholly unsatisfactory method of dealing with London's problems in the House.
I am concerned that the device may be misused. As well as using the blocking motion to obtain a debate on London's affairs, it could be used to try to ensure that the GLC does not get the capital expenditure that is provided by the Bill. That would be a misuse of a debate on the GLC's capital expenditure. I need not go into the history of the debate, because it has been set out on many occasions by GLC officers in their advice to Members.
The last occasion was not so much an attempt to debate the issues of London as an attempt to prevent that by a filibuster in the hope that some hon. Members would not be able to contribute. It certainly prevented several replies being given. While the device may be useful, it is capable of abuse. I hope that hon. Members will unite to find a better way to discuss the important problems of London.
The debate concerns the GLC's capital expenditure. Of necessity the GLC has had to discuss that expenditure with various Government Departments—in particular the Treasury—Secretaries of State and Ministers so that the matter could be presented to the House in a form that was acceptable to the Government as well as to the Opposition.
During the course of those discussions, the GLC was asked to make adjustments lo the tune of £39·6 million in order to make the estimates acceptable, which it did. Therefore, the Bill is acceptable to the Treasury Ministers and the various Departments involved, as well as to the GLC.
That does not mean that hon. Members are barred from discussing the revenue estimates or how those sums are to be split up. That is where the criticism of the debate comes. At the end of the day we must recognise that there is a relationship between the GLC and the electorate, who should be involved in any debate on how the revenue estimates are spent and determined. It is an abuse for the House to go into details and to vote against the Bill. There are other methods and times for that.
The Bill has not changed since its Committee stage. Therefore, I do not intend to go into details as I did on that occasion, except to emphasise the consequences of defeat, although I think that that is unlikely. The consequences of defeat should be understood. They are much as they were before. The GLC would not have the necessary powers to


incur capital expenditure between the date of expiry on 30 September and the Royal Assent. That possibility seemed to excite the imagination of some members of the democratic part of the Social Democratic and Liberal alliance, which many other hon. Members could not understand.
Hon. Members who are trying to take a responsible attitude recognise the difficulties for London and the House and the precedents that could be created if the revenue estimates were defeated by a debate on capital expenditure in the way that some hon. Members believe is possible.
The GLC is in a unique position among authorities because its affairs are debated in the Chamber. That means that it suffers from the vagaries of the legislative process and the delays that arise in the parliamentary timetable. We have suffered especially during this Session because the timetable has been particularly cramped. Measures have been shifted around and we have heard today that we shall face even more difficulties as we move towards the end of the Session. That makes it all the more important that we accept the necessity for the Bill, its importance and the need for it to pass through the House without delay so that it may receive Royal Assent before the Summer Recess.
There will be contractual arrangements—some have already been entered into—with which to contend and many other implications if the House fails to adopt a reasonble approach. There would be a dramatic effect on a range of projects. It is important to consider some of the things that might be affected if the attitude that we saw on Second Reading is to be taken further tonight.
There will always be differences between the two main parties on the various Estimates and other aspects of the Bill, but the previous vote showed that there is a basic understanding between the two main parties on the democratic processes as they apply to local authorities, especially to the GLC.
If the Bill is not given a Third Reading tonight there will be many consequences and I shall give a few examples. First, there would be a further delay for the Thames barrier. It would be a tragedy if there were further protraction because of a procedural delay. Home loans and mortgages would probably be among the first casualties. Loans to housing associations would suffer if there were an unnecessary delay in the Bill's passage. Employment schemes are being discussed in conjunction with local authorities and the private sector. It is hoped that these schemes will improve the industrial scene and give a boost to employment prospects in the Greater London area. Chambers of commerce and other interested parties are keen to see that the discussions go ahead without further delay.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I have serious reservations about the Greater London enterprise board and the cost to the people of the new chairman of £72,000 a year. The gentleman concerned is the deputy leader of the Labour Party in Wandsworth. I have such enormous reservations about that alone that I shall vote against the Bill. Is there anything that the hon. Gentleman can say to reassure me?

Mr. Stallard: This is the wrong debate in which to go into the establishment of the board in great detail. It might

have been better to raise that issue on Second Reading. This is not the occasion to discuss capital expenditure. However, I should welcome such a debate and I hope that we shall have one on the enterprise board as it takes shape. We are all interested in the board's development and the opportunities that we hope it will give.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that yesterday we debated the Government's policy for the regions? It embraced all the regions in Britain, employment, local authority implications and job opportunities. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) replied to the debate he mentioned the enterprise board. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) pursued the matter tonight he would probably be ruled out of order by Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know participated in yesterday's debate. I was afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you might rule me out of order if I went too far down the road that was opened to me by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). I appreciate the hon, Gentleman's anxieties and I suggest that we both ask for an early debate on that aspect of the GLC's policy. I shall be happy to join him in making that request.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: When I intervened on Second Reading I drew the attention of the House to the statement made on behalf of the GLC at an open council meeting on 15 February that no new home loans would be made and that further aid to housing associations would stop. The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill will provide facilities for home loans and for aid to housing associations, but the council has already said that it will not be able to continue to make them available because of Government cutbacks.

Mr. Stallard: Item 8 of the schedule refers to
Sundry persons under the Housing Act 1957 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Acts 1958 and 1959".
I understand that part of the sum set against that item is allocated to home loans, mortgages and loans to housing associations. They come within the council's authority, and the item sets out the sum that is provided in the capital estimates. If I am wrong, I have no doubt that I shall be corrected. It is one item that would be in jeopardy if we continued down the road that some hon. Members embarked upon during the previous debate.
Such an approach would have a dramatic effect on the GLC's obligations that come within the transfer of housing to local authorities. We know how much heartache that causes in the Chamber. We know that some of those who are now opposing the transfer were in the forefront during the campaign in which it was advocated that more expenditure should be devoted to the houses and properties concerned. I find it difficult to understand the double voting of those hon. Members.
We are all interested in London's traffic and probably we would all demand that more and more money should be spent on traffic schemes.

Mr. Greenway: No.

Mr. Stallard: Surely we do not want to injure or prejudice schemes that are designed to improve road safety and to make the life of cyclists safer. We have been advocating such action for a long time. There is a traffic signal modernisation programme.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a an unnecessary duplication of officials at borough and County Hall levels who are involved in traffic schemes, whether they be yellow lines, one-way streets, no right turns or parking meters? Under the present set-up each scheme has to be dealt with twice. This is a terrible waste of ratepayers' money. That set-up should go with the rest of the GLC.

Mr. Stallard: As I have said, it is almost an abuse of the debate to try to turn it into an anti-GLC tirade, or even to use it to make points at the council's expense. I am discussing some of the schemes that come within the council's capital expenditure and which will suffer if the irresponsibility of some who are trying to defeat the Bill on Third Reading cause the enactment of the Bill to be delayed. Many of us have criticisms of the traffic management schemes, but it is necessary to have such schemes. I have no doubt that we shall be discussing the GLC on future occasions.
I am especially concerned that the GLC's work on fire services should continue. In previous Parliaments we have taken a great deal of trouble to safeguard fire brigade services. If my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that he will wish to enlarge on the safeguarding of those services.
I understand that £2·5 million has been allocated for a centralised mobilisation project for the fire services. The computerisation of the system, which is long overdue, could reduce the call-out time. Who will vote against that? Those who do will face the difficulty of explaining to their constituents why they did so. Furthermore, £2·5 million has been allocated to replace outdated appliances. The fire brigade services use their appliances for about 12 years. Surely no one except those who argued against the Bill on Second Reading will argue that 12-year-old appliances should not be replaced.
I hope that between now and then there will be a change of heart and that they will accept that the capital expenditure is necessary. Two new stations are to be built, one at Beckenham and another at North Kensington. Those new stations are necessary to bring the fire brigade up to date with modern techniques and the rest. Major improvements to at least three other stations are proposed, one at Shooters Hill, one at Willesden and another at Erith. Who will vote against that? The people of London will not understand or forgive hon. Members who do so.
Most London Members of Parliament could add to the list that I have given. Although we all have criticisms, most of them are between the electorate and the GLC. Nevertheless, we are debating the allocation of capital expenditure that has been agreed between the Government, the Treasury and the GLC.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I have the GLC's detailed estimates on the fire brigade. I notice that no capital provision is included in the buildings and structures section of the GLC's document.

Mr. Stallard: Several detailed documents and minutes that explain the estimates were sent to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he has not read them or brought them with him. Perhaps if he reads them he will find the relevant information.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stallard: I think that I am doing all right. I had enough help from the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) on Second Reading. He can add little to the long diatribe that he made then. His assertion that he is unable to obtain sufficient information between then and now should not be taken too seriously.
I appeal to those hon. Members who supported the agreed estimates to go into the Lobby with those who will defend the GLC's capital expenditure projects to ensure that the Bill receives a Third Reading and Royal Assent before the recess.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Mr. Speaker has not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper.

Mr. John Hunt: The House is grateful once again to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) for his explanation of the Bill. He referred rather disparagingly to what he called the device of the blocking motion.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The device of the blocking motion is well understood by all parties as a method of obtaining a debate on London matters. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) said that there would be a Division on Third Reading, which in effect will be a Division on the decisions of the elected body across the water. That will be the purpose of the Division. Whether it is advisable or proper is another matter.

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful for that elucidation. The more I listen to debates on London matters the more I question the procedure laid down by the London Government Act 1963 by which the GLC, alone of local authorities in Britain, must obtain specific approval of Parliament for its expenditure.
The procedure is tedious and time consuming and has largely been overtaken by events. We all know that Governments are able to exercise stringent and far-reaching control over local government expenditure by penalties and clawbacks of all descriptions on a scale that was never envisaged in 1963. There is no longer any purpose or point in a money Bill of this type. I hope that in due course it will be possible to amend the law in that respect and bring the GLC in line with every other local authority in the country.
The present procedure presents especial difficulty for a Government when the party in power in County Hall is different from that which holds a majority in the House of Commons. With regard to the present Bill, some Back-Bench Conservatives object to going through the Lobby in support of Mr. Livingstone's spending plans. But we are told by Ministers and Whips that the Bill must not be opposed as its loss would create problems of immense financial and constitutional complexity. That only underlines how farcical the proceedings are. The sooner they can be changed the better it will be for all of us.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is procedurally absurd that the Bill cannot be properly discussed? Some of us voted to give it a Second Reading so that it could be pulled out in Committee only to discover that that could not happen. The only way in which we can express dissatisfaction with the GLC's spending plans is to vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has underlined my point. I am all in favour of the House having more debates on London matters, but this type of Bill is not the right vehicle for that.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in 1975 he and his hon. Friends divided the House on a money Bill. The Bill was defeated and the GLC did not get its money for about six or eight weeks. The device that the hon. Gentleman referred to has already been used. Nevertheless, the GLC remained in business.

Mr. Hunt: I do not suggest that some of us have not had fun at the expense of the GLC. I still maintain that that is not the right way for such matters to be carried through. It would be neater and more sensible if the GLC conformed with other local authorities in expenditure matters, subject always to ultimate control of Government who hold the purse strings.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The Government may assure the hon. Gentleman now of the disaster that would occur if the Bill is not passed but the hon. Gentleman has proven the Government wrong as an earlier Bill was successfully blocked.

Mr. Hunt: I shall not be tempted along that line of argument as I might be tempted into the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman, in which case I should incur the displeasure of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
We are told that the Government have no objection to the Bill. I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment to our London debate. Will he give me an assurance that none of the items in the Bill reflect the spendthrift, irresponsible attitude to ratepayers' money that has symbolised Mr. Livingstone's period of power at County Hall?
Clause 4(a) provides for the expenditure of more than £10 million on recreation and the arts. Since Second Reading I have been assured that that item does not include anything for grants, but is that really so? The statement from the GLC in support of Second Reading described the item as
Provision of recreational facilities and support for the Arts".
That seems pretty wide. On Second Reading, in response to my intervention seeking an assurance that none of the money was earmarked for the kind of fringe radical theatre so loved by Mr. Livingstone, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North strongly defended spending on the theatre and gave the impression that such expenditure was within the terms of the Bill. We are entitled to some clarification on that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give it when he winds up the debate.
We are entitled to know, for example, whether the £10,688,000 for recreation and the arts includes any community arts grants, as they are described across the river. Does it include, for instance, the grant of £1,000 which I understand was made to the May Day theatre in Battersea—its very name is suspect enough and its performance seems to be sporadic, to say the least.

Mr. Ted Graham: Perhaps it needs help.

Mr. Hunt: I am told that it has not performed in public since 1979. It would be interesting to know what assessment of its artistic abilities was made by the GLC before the grant was approved. Perhaps the infrequency of its performances explains why its applications for grant have been turned down by the Arts Council, the Greater

London Arts Association and Wandsworth borough council Mr. "Soft-Touch" Livingstone, however, has come up with the money. I want an absolute assurance that that money is not included in the Bill.
The other item in the schedule that I wish to query appears under the heading "Planning and Industry", and provision is made for a total of more than £62 million. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North suggested that any discussion of the Greater London enterprise board would be outside the scope of the debate. The GLC statement supporting the Bill, however, described this item as an initiative
to stimulate industry and employment in London"—
ignoring the fact that the greatest disincentive to industry and employment in London is the massive and escalating rate burden imposed on business and commerce by Mr. Livingstone and his friends.

Mr. Wellbeloved: High interest rates.

Mr. Hunt: If we are asked to approve more than £60 million of expenditure on planning and industry, we are entitled to some explanation of how the money is to be spent. As I understand it, these funds are administered by the industry and employment committee at County Hall, and the committee envisages that half of the money will go to development and half to loan provision. I gather, however, that so far only two loans have been made under this heading. The first is a loan of £100,000 to the magazine City Limits, to which the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) referred on Second Reading. That is certainly a high risk project. Indeed, even the GLC comptroller of finance was driven to warn the committee that the inherent risks should not be minimised. The other loan, I gather, is to the radical feminist publication Sheba Magazine which, whatever its distinctive merits or attractions, is hardly in the mainstream of London life.

Mr. Reg Race: How does the hon. Gentleman know?

Mr. Hunt: With regard to money for development, we all favour creating new jobs for London, but this must be done with some sense of financial realism and responsibility. I hope that when the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North winds up the debate—he seems to have left the Chamber—

Mr. Wellbeloved: He is getting briefed.

Mr. Hunt: I apologise. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North is getting briefed. I hope that he is also listening to my remarks and that when he has been briefed he will be able to bring us up to date on achievements so far in the provision of money for development to create jobs, whether through the Greater London enterprise board or in other ways. The only specific achievement that I can trace so far is the erection of 31 workshops said to provide 140 jobs at a total cost of £1,950,000. That works out at £13,892 per job. The Labour Party promised in its election manifesto two years ago to create 10,000 new jobs in London. On the basis of the cost of those workshops, the cost of that for London ratepayers will be £138,920,000, so we shall have to examine the next money Bill with even greater caution.
I have grave reservations about providing money for a council that has proved itself wholly indifferent to the interests of its ratepayers. The Greater London Council is


an expensive shambles largely irrelevant to the real needs of London. I saw a magazine the other day which put the point rather well. It said of the GLC that
after the furious but ill-directed activity of their first few months, as committees proliferate activity stagnates … No one could seriously accuse Ken and Co. of not working, but so much of the work has produced no worthwhile result—galloping off in all directions and making a great deal of noise may be fun for a while, but it will achieve nothing".
That was the verdict not of Conservative Central Office but of London Time,—the journal of the GLC Staff Association—the people who work at County Hall and have seen the Labour administration there at first hand. They should know, and their comments should make us pause and ponder before giving the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Frank Dobson: The hon Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) did not mention the fact that the Bill covers provision for the Inner London education authority. Given the purposes for which that provision is intended, I am surprised at the opposition expressed by some hon. Members today.
Of the money provided for ILEA by the Bill, £1 million is for new nursery provision and a further £1 million is for updating and improving primary school premises so that they can provide nursery classes. A further £3½ million is intended for major works in primary and secondary schools owned and operated by the authority.
Those works include the very sensible effort, which ILEA has been making for a year or two, to provide sports facilities in or near its secondary schools so that children and teachers do not have to travel miles on ILEA or other coaches to outer London, which is a nuisance for both children and teachers who do not like travelling an hour each way on the bus and at great expense to the authority, and it means that the children enjoy games less than they otherwise might. To spend money on in situ school sports facilities is an admirable policy.
My constituency has benefited. The secondary school which my two oldest children attend had about £250,000 spent on it to improve the sports facilities on the site. That was done in a slightly more expensive way so that it would be possible for the local people to use the sports facilities during the evening when they were not being used by the school children.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who was once a teacher at that school, was pleased enough to attend the open ceremony of those sports facilities, and I am surprised, therefore, that he is saying that the Bill fails to give value for money to London ratepayers. I did not hear him say that the scheme, which is identical to others provided for under the Bill, was not giving value for money. He did not say that to my constituents or to his former fellow teachers who were present that day.

Mr. Greenway: I fought for 12 years to improve the facilities at that school, so I do not need a lecture from the hon. Gentleman on the school's needs. I have to say in passing that the scheme is interesting. Children will be prevented from travelling to off-site games facilities which they have enjoyed and profited from for over 20 years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make remarks in passing when intervening. Interventions are supposed to be brief. Interventions prolong speeches and reduce the number of hon. Members who can take part in the debate.

Mr. Greenway: I shall be brief. The scheme prevents children from travelling. That is a mixed blessing. The children in that school will miss some valuable facilities as a result of it. Therefore, I have mixed feelings. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking against my constituency interests. I am sure that he will accept that.

Mr. Dobson: Children who come to my flat say they get sick when travelling on buses to outer London and they do not feel like playing games when they arrive there. I am sure that they do not consider playing games next to the school as a mixed blessing. They think that it is a wholehearted blessing, and so do the staff who normally accompany them.
It is those blessings that the authorities are trying to introduce into other schools. The area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard)—which is, regrettably, represented on the GLC by the sole elected SDP Member—contains the major secondary school facility of Haverstock school, which is the subject of the estimates that we are debating tonight. The intention is to improve its facilities so that the children will not need to travel. It is, therefore, surprising that SDP Members—none of whom, unlike Mrs. Sofer, has bothered to go to the electorate—are objecting to these schemes.
It is equally odd that the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) is objecting—he is trying to block the Bill—to spending £38,200 on the relocation of the existing nursery at Hargrave Park school, which provides facilities for his constituents. He is objecting to spending money to move the existing nursery from substandard hutted accommodation into the main building. That is dreadful.

Mr. John Grant: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is being silly. I have objected to no such thing. I have not yet decided what I shall do about the Bill. The school is not in my constituency. Unless I have an opportunity to ask some questions and get some answers, I shall be obliged to vote against the Bill. I hope that I shall have that opportunity and get some sensible replies.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman will need to explain to his constituents why he is opposed to spending £163,000 on improving Holloway school, which, even if it is not in his constituency, takes a substantial number of pupils from the area that he represents. Perhaps he will be in favour of having internal lavatories at Duncombe junior mixed school. That will benefit the children of his constituents. It is intended that that school should benefit from the Bill. [Interruption.] I do not suggest that any of the schools are necessarily in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but I am willing to claim, and I doubt that he can gainsay it, that children from his constituency go to those schools.
There are other SDP Members who seem to have forgotten whom they represent. I notice that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) is in the Chamber.
ILEA is spending a substantial sum of money on improving the schools in its area. There are more than 60 pages—the schedule is even longer, with 70 pages—setting out in detail ILEA's intended improvements to its schools. That spending is intended to improve the educational opportunities of the children whom even


London SDP hon. Members represent. They should not forget that, nor should their constituents. It is deplorable that they should be attempting to stop the Bill.
SDP hon. Members should not talk about what they are doing on Third Reading. Some SDP hon. Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading. They tried to stop it. More than £300,000 of the money to be made available under the Bill is intended to be spent by ILEA on improving the means of escape, in case of fire, from the authority's schools and from many voluntary schools in the area. It is deplorable that SDP hon. Members voted against that on Second Reading and are considering voting against the Bill now. What will they say if one of the schools burns down? Will they say "We were just playing games in the House of Commons one night"? When the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) spoke for one hour and 21 minutes, he was not trying to stop the Bill from going through; he was just trying to organise a vote against it! That sort of approach is absolutely disgraceful.
It is also deplorable that some hon. Members are attempting to prevent ILEA from going ahead with a limited amount of new spending on entirely new school buildings. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) would be interested in the tentative proposals to build a new secondary school to assist in secondary education in Thamesmead. The expenditure will not be chickenfeed. It will be £10 million.
An expenditure of £1 million will be needed in the heart of the East End to provide a new primary school which is intended to give a decent start in life—better than we could previously have expected—for many children from Bangladeshi homes. Any reasonable person would welcome such expenditure by ILEA. That expenditure has to come before the House because of the peculiar and outdated procedures to which the hon. Member for Ravensbourne referred. I agree with him on that.
Therefore, I hope that, even without asking their questions and waiting for answers, the SDP Members—I regret that they are on the Opposition Benches, rather than on the other side of the House—will consider the consequences of a further effort to obstruct the passage of the Bill. I hope they will remember that their silly game playing would, if it succeeded, severely damage the educational opportunities and even the health and safety of a large number of London children. I do not think that we should play that sort of game. Anyone who is claiming to break the mould of British politics should avoid playing that sort of game, but ever since SDP Members have operated in this House it seems to be the only sort of game that they play.

8 pm

Mr. Harry Greenway: When the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) speaks of the money required for the Inner London Education Authority under the Bill, he is talking of about £31 million. He detailed several of the projects that the money will cover. I know, from my 23 years' service with the ILEA, that there will be many valuable projects involved. The problem with a Bill such as this is that,

while one does not oppose everything in it, if one opposes certain things, one can only do so by referring to them in a speech and by voting against the Bill.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the expenditure of which he was speaking in such moving terms amounts to £31 million, and that the ILEA has a budget during the current year of £748 million, so that it will not put the ILEA on the floor if the GLC loses the Bill.
I have to consider the balance of my constituents' interests. That is what I am here to do. It is a form of blackmail to say that one would be voting against children's interests if one voted against the Bill. That is not what I am intending to vote against in voting against the Bill. I shall be voting against other matters in it.
I have a long experience of East London, where there are many primary schools. Several of them are being closed. Therefore, I did not weep too much over some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, because buildings are available.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the school attended by his own children, thereby declaring his personal interest in that school and its facilities, which we all accept. When he speaks—presumably as an educationist—of the value of on-site facilities for children, and of the fact that the Bill will make provisions of that kind, I go a very long way with him. However, I do not go all the way with him when he gives a particular example about which I know a good deal more than he does, having worked at the school in King's Cross for 12 years and been deputy head of it. I still know many of the staff extremely well, and the parents too. I would not say that I know them all better than the hon. Gentleman does, who represents them, but it may be that I know some of them better than he does.
What the hon. Gentleman said about the scheme to which he tried to bind my vote was not altogether fair. Children will lose a great deal by being kept on site at the school in question and thereby being denied the chance to travel to off-site facilities. Some of them are a little distant but some are not so far away. Many of the journeys, which I undertook from the school for years, were not by bus but by Underground or train. Mornington Crescent Underground station is within walking distance of the school, as is Euston. In 15 or 20 minutes one could be out in the country, in the open air, enjoying the facilities of the countryside. That is what children from King's Cross particularly need.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that his constituents have profited enormously in the past and still profit from being taken out to the country for sports and other recreational facilities. I regret very much the loss of those facilities, just as, I am sure, the children do. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will watch their interests in this way.

Mr. Spearing: Apart from the fact that most of the pros and cons of these matters are for the ILEA, the hon. Gentleman said that he was looking after the interests of his constituents, but is it not correct that his constituents are entirely within the London borough of Ealing and have nothing to do with the ILEA—and, indeed, do not even contribute to the grant from the Exchequer to the ILEA, because under the Secretary of State there is not one?

Mr. Greenway: If the hon. Member had been following the debate with his customary attention, he would have noticed that I said that I have to balance the


interests of my constituents against the arguments being advanced by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South, who has put specific points to me in regard to education. I have been challenged to speak on them. All the points are in the Bill and it is the Bill that we are discussing. What is out of order in that? I have long known of the hon. Gentleman's experience and his teaching at Elliott school in the ILEA. I know about his rowing coaching, and of the day when all the boys walked away from the boat. He will remember that. They would not work with him.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my hon. Friend accept that the rates charged on behalf of ILEA have a real effect on the residents in outer London boroughs, many of whom have their employment in central London? The level of employment very much depends on the level of rate demands. Therefore, there is no divorce between employment and rates, and the actions of a profligate local authority, such as the ILEA, will affect the level of employment.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. He poses an argument which I support and which will need to be answered by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) when he replies to the debate.
My sense of outrage about the Bill is that the Labour Party fought the GLC election in my constituency on a promise not to take the proposed Hayes bypass to the White Hart roundabout in Northolt. Yesterday, it went back on that promise, having won Ealing, North by the small majority of 200 or 300 votes. Now, by diktat of Mr. Livingstone and his friends, and facilitated by this miserable Bill, we shall have this disgraceful road to the White Hart roundabout, in direct contradiction of a promise to the electors of my constituency and beyond. That is scandalous.
I shall not rest until I have done everything possible to reverse the decision. All the traffic that is not wanted in Hayes and Southall is now to be imposed on the people of Northolt, causing them hell and misery and destroying their way of life. I cannot support a Bill that facilitates that. If an assurance was given from the Opposition Front Bench that the Labour majority on the Greater London Council would keep its promise about the bypass, I would vote for the Bill. Without that assurance, I shall vote against it.

Mr. Dobson: Did a Labour or Conservative candidate win Ealing, North in the GLC election?

Mr. Greenway: I am pleased to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The Conservative candidate said that he would support termination of the bypass in the area, although he did not specify the White Hart roundabout, but added that he was looking for ways in which the matter could be handled with the least disturbance to the people. He took that line against my strong opposition and the opposition of the local community and the A312 committee. But the Labour candidate said in his election manifesto that he and the Labour Party
oppose termination of the delayed Hayes bypass at the White Hart roundabout.
He was elected by a margin of 200 or 300 votes. The fact that a promise has not been kept is serious for the community that I represent. On that basis alone, I cannot support the Bill.
The Bill provides for the GLC's continued doubtful handling of London Transport. I cannot support the GLC's action in doubling fares. That may prompt ironical laughter from the Opposition Benches, but it is in fact what happened. There is now to be another "Fares Fair" campaign at a cost to the ratepayers of hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is the best that the GLC can do. I want to see London Transport taken away from the GLC and put under a separate transport authority with a proper public subsidy. It should not in any case be subsidised by the ratepayers whose rates have been doubled by the GLC in less than a year. I cannot support any Bill that helps that state of affairs to continue.
There are many individual reasons why I oppose the Bill, though I support in most ways the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt).

Mr. John Cartwright: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) on the fair and clear manner in which he introduced the Bill. As he says, the Second Reading debate arose from the action of my hon. Friends and myself in blocking the Bill. I make no apology for that. Had there been no blocking motion, there would have been no debate and no scrutiny of the spending of £1 million of public money. It is fair to recall that a vote against Second Reading of the money Bill is not unprecedented. I have good reason to remember that the Second Reading of the money Bill was defeated in 1976. I was the Member responsible for introducing the Bill on that occasion. It was defeated because Members of the then Opposition objected to certain parts. As a result, there had to be a renegotiation of the Bill between the appropriate authorities in County Hall and in Government. I suggest that if the Third Reading is defeated tonight, exactly the same process will take place. All the heart-rending tales that we have heard from Labour Members tonight about the dreadful consequences of defeating the Bill add up to nothing. If the Bill were to be defeated tonight, a renegotiated Bill would be introduced that would, I hope, leave out all the things to which we object and retain the good elements to which other hon. Members have referred, and we would support it.
The Second Reading debate was exactly four weeks ago. The debate was enlivened by a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who raised some wide-ranging issues, including home defence, the role of the Greater London enterprise board, the activities of the GLC police committee, the problems of mobility of council tenants and other important constituency issues.
We understood why the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North could not deal with all those points in a short speech at the end of the debate. As is usual in such a case, he undertook to provide a written reply. Therefore, I was surprised to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford has not yet received that detailed written reply, nor has my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), who also raised issues in that debate. All that they received late this afternoon was a photocopy of a letter addressed to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. That is a somewhat cavalier treatment of hon. Members who are entitled to a personal reply from the GLC on the issues that they raised.

Mr. Stallard: Replies were received. The hon. Gentleman's point is a petty one. Naturally, as I was responsible for introducing the Bill, the replies were sent to me and I accept responsibility for replying to the questions that could not be answered then because of the filibustering by his hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford. Those replies were not given and I accept the responsibility for not having given them. It is petty to say that a photocopy of a letter to me was provided. I replied as far as I could to the detailed constituency points that are not relevant to the Bill.

Mr. Cartwright: I hear what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North says, but if he were treated in that way by a Minister—simply sent a photocopy of a letter to someone else—I know what his reaction would be, and I would support him all the way. My hon. Friends were entitled to a personal reply.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Had we not put down a motion to block the Bill on Third Reading, we would not even have received that photocopied reply from the GLC, and nothing, whether courtesy or any other reason, would have induced the GLC even to acknowledge the important points that were raised.

Mr. Cartwright: My hon. Friend makes a fair point.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I should say that at five o'clock this evening I received from the Minister a letter that was directed to the wrong Member. It went to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) first, but I finally received it at five o'clock. I always receive letters from the Minister via Leith. The Department of the Environment does, however, address letters to the right names even if turns out to be the wrong Member.

Mr. Cartwright: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North referred to the Thames barrier, which is vital to my constituents. I visited that mammoth scheme several times since it started, and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford and I toured it earlier this year. The scheme is a credit to the skill, ingenuity and expertise of all involved. It has been dogged by practical problems that are acceptable in such a pioneering project, but the scheme has also been dogged by industrial relations difficulties. Those problems have affected both the cost of the project and the construction programme. In December 1973, the original cost of the barrier alone was put at £88 million. The most recent estimate is £452 million, which represents a five-fold increase in eight years. If the associated river defence work is included, the total cost is now put at £750 million.
The original completion date of September 1979 has slipped substantially and despite alterations to the programme the project is expected to be completed in November 1982. That date is still firm despite a further industrial stoppage in January. Seventy-five per cent. of the capital cost is met by a grant from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that at the end of the project there will be a detailed analysis and an explanation of the incredible increase in cost to discover how much of the increase was caused by industrial problems, inflation and practical difficulties.
On Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford referred to several grants from the GLC. The reaction of some Labour Members was to say that, when set against the gigantic £1 billion capital spending in the Bill, the grants, even if they amounted to

several hundred thousand or one million pounds, were too small to worry about. That is a strange argument. When resources for local government in London are limited, any spending on low priority schemes removes resources from high priority schemes.
An example of such a scheme is the GLC women's committee set up a few months ago. It drew adverse comment from the staff side representatives in County Hall. They said:
The feeling has been expressed by a number of departments reflecting the view, of women members of staff that the proposed committee would well, at best, not assist policies for equal opportunities, and at worst be counter-productive. It has been suggested that if there are problems they should be dealt with within the Council's committee structure without the creation of a new bureaucracy.
The new bureaucracy has a budget of £62,000 for staff, £70,000 a year for conferences, publicity and other expenses and £200,000 for grants. It is advertising the availability of grants at a cost to the ratepayers of £1,200, despite the fact that the comptroller of finance at County Hall advised the committee that, of the £200,000 available, £74,000 is already committed and applications received exceed £300,000.

Mr. Race: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason for the establishment of the women's committee was that it was believed that women were being discriminated against in the GLC and in the population at large and that it was necessary to have a separate committee to establish where that discrimination existed and to do something about it? Is he further aware that the grants made available by the committee are to such laudable projects as the safe women's transport group in Lewisham, which provides minibuses to transport women who may otherwise be attacked by men in the streets? Is he against that?

Mr. Cartwright: It is hard to believe that discrimination against GLC employees can best be dealt with by setting up a separate committee. If trade unions were doing their job—the hon. Gentleman knows much about the work of trade unions—they would use the existing machinery to look after their members. I shall not go into the rights or wrongs of an individual grant. My point is that to advertise for more applications at a cost of £1,200, when the money already available is oversubscribed, is not a good use of the ratepayers' contributions.
We were told on Second Reading that employment creation was the main emphasis of the GLC's spending programme as represented by this Bill. That is borne out by the estimates. Capital spending on industry and employment is £24·5 million compared with £2¼ million in 1981–82. That is a tenfold increase in one year. Revenue spending is £10·5 million compared with £3¼ million in 1981–82, which is a threefold increase.
The main element in the programme is clearly the Greater London enterprise board. That was one of the Labour Party's manifesto commitments during the last GLC elections. At the time, we were told that it was the brainchild of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). As a result, one might have expected a well worked-out, finely-tuned scheme ready to go into operation straight away. However, there have been considerable fluctuations and alterations in policy in relation to the GLEB.
On 26 January, in a report on the formation and establishment of the board, the GLC was told:


It is hoped that the company will be operative by the end of March 1982".
It would appear that that hope has not been fulfilled.
There was, of course, the hiccup over the position of the chairman and chief executive. In December 1981, it was announced that Mr. Edward Cunningham of the Scottish Development Agency would be appointed as chairman and chief executive. However, certain differences appeared to arise between him and elected councillors. The party of open Government at County Hall is coy about the details, but whatever they were it was announced in May that Mr. Cunningham had departed after less than five months.
At a GLC meeting on 30 March, a report from the industry and employment committee set out the revised board structure: three full-time board directors to be appointed at once; up to three more full-time directors later; and up to seven part-time directors at some other point in time. However, by 8 June the position had changed again. We now had a two-tier structure: a main board, presided over by the chairman and chief executive and 12 part-time directors, and a management board, again presided over by the chairman and chief executive, and six executive directors heading individual divisions within the board's operations.
On 29 June Mr. McGarvey was appointed as chief executive alone and it was implied that further consideration would he given to the appointment of a part-time non-executive chairperson.

Mr. Spearing: Would not it be more appropriate for these criticisms—if they are criticisms—to be taken up by those sitting at County Hall, who may be members of the hon. Gentleman's party? I am told that capital is not involved and whatever the merits of the hon. Gentleman's remarks he is surely referring to administrative wisdom rather than to revenue expenditure.

Mr. Cartwright: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Bill's provisions. We are on Third Reading, and therefore we are concerned only with the Bill's contents.

Mr. Cartwright: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am relating my remarks to the administrative expenses that arise out of the capital provision. The GLC has made it clear that it cannot simply give capital away. It must build an administrative structure to oversee the disbursements of those capital grants. I am discussing that administrative structure.
The salaries in that administrative structure are important. In earlier debates the salary of Mr. McGarvey, the chief executive, was referred to. The report to the GLC on 29 June said that his salary would be "not less than £25,000". It has turned out to be £35,000 and with the extra elements in the package it adds up to about £45,000. In addition, loss of Government grant will add 60 per cent. to that expenditure. That adds a further £27,000 and thus we reach the publicised figure of £72,000 as the cost to ratepayers.

Mr. Jessel: The hon. Gentleman is discussing the cost of bureaucracy in the GLC, but is he aware that within the past week the SDP has floated the idea of a new regional government for the South-East? Is not it almost beyond belief—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) answers that point, his remarks will be wide of the Bill. He must relate his remarks to the Bill's provisions.

Mr. Cartwright: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am referring to the salaries of the directors of the Greater London enterprise board. They will be running the board and disbursing the capital sums included in the Bill. On 8 June the GLC heard in a report that the part-time directors of the GLEB were to receive salaries of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the chief executive's salary. If the salary of the chief executive was £25,000, their remuneration was to be £2,500 to £5,000.
The report explained that the salaries were
based on the premise that all part-time members will spend one half day per week in work for the board and some as much as one full day per week.
However, we know that the chief executive's salary is not £25,000 but £35,000, and therefore the part-time directors' salaries will be between £3,500 and £7,000, depending on whether they work a half day or a full day per week.
According to the report by the comptroller of finance issued on 8 June, the salaries of part-time directors would add up to £90,000 in a full year. That was based on a chief executive's salary of £30,000, but that salary is £35,000. We must also add on 60 per cent. for grant loss as a result of the spending. That makes a bill of £160,000 for the ratepayers for the part-time members of the Greater London enterprise board.
The comptroller of finance commented:
These estimates exclude accommodation charges about which a separate report is proposed.
I should have thought that there were enough rooms in County Hall without having to find extra accommodation for the part-time members of the board.
There is a further report on the salaries of the management board members—the full-time executive directors who head divisions. It is unlikely that they will earn less than £25,000 a year. Allowing for the loss of Government grant, that means a bill of about £250,000 for the full-time executive directors. The salary of the part-time, non-executive chairman must be added. His salary is unlikely to be less than £10,000. With the loss of grant the salaries of the chief executive, the part-time chairman, the part-time directors and the full-time directors produce a net cost to London ratepayers of about £½ million a year. That is before the staffing costs are taken into account.
We are told that the Greater London enterprise board is to have six divisional groups of staff covering sector and structural development, appraisal, technology, area and property development, common services and general administrative support. So far, only interim staff arrangements are known. The 79 posts carry a full-year cost of £1,112,000. Even in the early stages it seems that the administrative costs of the board will be about £1¾ million. That is before even one job is created.
We are entitled to ask questions about the board. When will it be operative? How many staff will it finally employ? What are the total estimated operating costs to be borne by London ratepayers? Most important, how many jobs will be created?

Mr. John Wheeler: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to spend the money from the Greater London Council it will be necessary to raise a precept in London to produce money from the ratepayers—most of


whom are commercial ratepayers—and that, for every £10,000 taken from commercial ratepayers, one job in London is lost?

Mr. Cartwright: I would not comment on the arithmetic. It is possible to exaggerate the impact on employment of rate increases, but they do have an impact. To tax more harshly firms left in London to create new jobs is a self-defeating exercise.
The Bill deals with another aspect of job creation at County Hall. A new unit, the economic policy group, is associated with capital spending. The chief economic adviser has already been appointed. In a report which the council considered on 29 June he says:
The first stage, the establishment of a 'nucleus' team, was completed on 1 March by which time a Chief Economic Adviser and four senior economic assistants…had taken up posts. A review of the staffing necessary to carry out the primary functions of EPG to draw up the London Industrial Strategy (LIS) and the London Manpower Plan (LMP) has now been completed and forms the basis of this report.
That involves an extra 14 posts. According to the comptroller of finance, in the current financial year that adds up to another £205,000. If one allows for the 60 per cent. grant loss, the figure becomes £328,000. The full year cost of the posts is £307,300. That is an average of £22,000 per job—nice jobs if you can get them, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Dobson: In response to an intervention by the Chair, the hon. Member justified relating to the Bill the salaries paid by the Greater London enterprise board by saying that the funds for investment were covered by the Bill. Is he justifying his present excursions on the same ground? It appears that there is no capital expenditure in the Bill relating to the revenue expenditure on the salaries that he is discussing.

Mr. Cartwright: As I understand it, the economic policy group is responsible for setting out the London employment strategy, which is something that is followed by the activities of the Greater London enterprise board and other GLC departments associated with job creation. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will see that when I get to the point.

Mr. John Grant: Does my hon. Friend not think that it is curious that we keep having interventions from Labour Members seeking to restrict discussion on the Greater London enterprise board? Does this not mean that there is something to hide?

Mr. Cartwright: My hon. Friend is much more suspicious than I. I assumed that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) was merely concerned about the rules of order.

Mr. Dobson: Since I deliberately made a short speech so that every hon. Member who wished to speak would have the opportunity to do so, I am concerned to assist those of my hon. Friends, and even Conservative Members, who would like to speak, to do so within the rules of order.

Mr. Cartwright: I have given way to a number of interventions from the Labour Benches, which has extended the length of my remarks.
I was referring to the extra jobs in the economic policy group. The number of jobs will be 26 and the full year cost

is estimated at £550,000, again at over £21,000 a job. If we add the 60 per cent. grant loss, the cost to London ratepayers will be £850,000. The senior officers on the staff side say:
The work, as described, appears to duplicate and overlap in part the separate proposals for the Greater London Enterprise Board activity…There is also duplication of effort with the Central Policy Unit and the Central Policy Intelligence Unit. No justification exists for the establishment of parallel units.
That is the reaction of the staff, and I found it very powerful.
Another point I wish to make is about the industry and capital employment programme and its staffing. There are 38 extra posts in the valuation and estates, architects and mechanical engineering departments being added specifically as a result of the capital programme. That is another full year cost of £695,000, and it is only the start of the process.
I accept that the aim of this operation is to create jobs for the unemployed in London, but I am sad to see that the result at the early stages is doing nothing more than adding highly paid jobs to the County Hall bureaucracy.
My hon. Friends and I divided the House on Second Reading to show our concern about certain aspects of GLC spending plans. We might have expected that our concern was shared by right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches. On a number of occasions they have been extremely critical of the spending policies of the GLC. When it came to the Division we found that 56 Conservative Members voted with 57 Labour Members to guarantee the Bill a Second Reading. We noticed that in the Lobby, several Ministers and Whips were voting for the Bill.
There has now been, a little late in the day, an attempt to recover the situation by the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of a number of Conservative Members, some of whom appear to have had a conversion since the Second Reading vote. In future I shall find it difficult to take seriously Government criticism of the GLC and its spending policies. For example, the Under-Secretary of State said:
I commend the Bill to the House and say that it is consistent with the Government's overall strategy to local government.
That must contrast sharply with some of the adverse comments made by the Secretary of State and by the Minister responsible for local government about the spending activities of the GLC.

Mr. Jessel: Is not the point that the Minister was worried that if the Bill were not passed the cost of running the GLC could fall on the Department of the Environment? That was his point. He was not by any means commending everything that the GLC did.

Mr. Cartwright: I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the Minister said:
I commend the Bill to the House".—[Official Report, 17 June; Vol. 25, c. 1175.]
I repeat the precedent in 1976. Had the Bill been defeated, it would have been possible to renegotiate the Bill in substantially the same form, but without the objectionable features.
It is clear from the exercise on Second Reading that the Government are fighting a phoney war against the Greater London Council. If the Government are fighting a phoney war, what about the position of the GLC's Labour leadership? What about Mr. Livingstone? He likes to present himself as "super Ken" fighting on the barricades,


fending off the Heseltinian hordes from Marsham Street and prepared to shed his last drop of blood to defend the spending plans of the GLC from Government interference.
As we have heard, a deal was done between the GLC leadership and the Government, which has rendered the GLC's spending programmes acceptable to the Government. Large parts of those programmes are not acceptable to me or to my hon. Friends. I am glad that we have succeeded in shedding some light on them in these debates. I do not accept that that is an abuse of the procedures of the House. We have done a service to the House and to the people of London.

Mr. Reg Race: The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) referred to the salaries of members of the Greater London enterprise board. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that on a number of occasions we are called upon to vote for or against increases in the salaries of Members of Parliament and Ministers. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Lobby with me when we voted against the increase of pay of Members of Parliament in 1979. Is it only substantial salaries for members of the Greater London enterprise board that he is against when there happens to be a Labour-controlled leadership of the GLC or is he also against top salaries being paid to Ministers and Members of Parliament? That is a pertinent point.
I would have greater respect for the hon. Gentleman's point of view were he to argue that high pay for all executives was a mistake and that it should bear some relation to the jobs that they were creating and the people that they were looking after. That is an important point, of which the Greater London Council and the Government must take note.

Mr. John Grant: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the salary being paid to Mr. McGarvey or is he not? If he followed his argument to its logical conclusion, he would condemn it.

Mr. Race: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a pertinent question. I shall give a straightforward answer. The salaries that are being offered at the top level of the GLC are too high. One of the reasons advanced for the salary paid to the chairman and the chief executive of the Greater London enterprise board is that it has to fit in with the rest of the bureaucracy at County Hall, which is related to the special scales negotiated by the GLC staff association and the other trade unions that make up the trade union side. The structure of the top salaries in the GLC is out of line with what should be paid.
I shall pick up some points that have been made in the debate. The Bill is about jobs, housing and transport. Significantly, it is also about the cost of the GLC's services to the ratepayer. If the Social Democratic Party or the Conservative Party were to vote against the Bill, they would be voting against the improvements in housing that have been made possible by the GLC's plans.
An estate in my constituency, the White Hart Lane Estate, was built at the turn of the century and is now in dire need of urgent improvement. On 1 April 1982 it was handed over to the London borough of Haringey. Many of the houses on that estate are in a deplorable condition. They need new roofs, new guttering, new damp courses, new sinks and rewiring and a whole string of other major

improvements to bring them up to modern standards. For any hon. Member to vote against a Bill that does those specific things for specific people is outrageous.
Therefore, I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that the Bill will improve the quality of life for people on estates such as the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) which was taken over by Hackney borough council on 1 April 1982 and is also in need of substantial improvement.
The Bill is also about jobs. The purpose of the Greater London enterprise board is not to provide an expensive bureaucracy but to put jobs on the ground. That was the Labour Party's commitment in the GLC election manifesto on which we fought and won the election in 1981. I must tell the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), who has now left the Chamber, that the Greater London enterprise board and the GLC have already begun to provide jobs in the Greater London area under existing powers. They have done so in Haringey by providing workshops and they have a number of other schemes throughout London to provide a substantial number of jobs in the immediate future. That is how we should test the success or otherwise of the Greater London enterprise board. Given that there ate 340,000 unemployed in Greater London, it is scandalous that attacks should be made on a local authority that is seeking to do its best to remove unemployment.
I wish to contrast the activities of the Labour-controlled GLC with the activities of the Government in providing employment. The GLC is seeking to use taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to provide jobs in London. The Government are using taxpayers' money to give grants to companies to move out of London and thereby to destroy jobs in London. That is what has happened in the past few months in Haringey. The Government gave a grant to Berec and Hanson Trust to remove the group technical centre from Tottenham to Consett in County Durham. That may be good news for Consett but it is bad news for London.
There is a contrast between the use of taxpayers' money to provide such grants and the use of ratepayers' money for the Greater London enterprise board, which is proposed in the Bill. I hope the House will support the objectives of the Greater London enterprise board in its objectives.
The Bill is also important because it affects transport. Many hon. Members will have in mind road schemes that they wish to be implemented by the GLC. I found it extraordinary that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) should suggest that we did not need a London-wide transport planning authority. That is an extraordinary suggestion, given that individual boroughs cannot solve their transport problems by themselves. They cannot possibly be given the responsibility for providing solutions to London-wide problems. That appears so obvious that it is extraordinary that a Conservative Member should put the idea forward as a serious suggestion.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I fear that the hon. Member far Wood Green (Mr. Race) did not hear the intervention in the same terms as I did. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) say that that responsibility should be taken away from the Greater London Coucil. He did not mention that the responsibility should be taken away from any other authority. I had the


distinct impression that he thought that some other authority would be more capable of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Race: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is rapidly putting nails in his hon. Friend's coffin. What other authority is there? The London boroughs cannot do the job and neither can the Government, who are not elected to do a local authority's job. The GLC is the appropriate body to plan and run London's transport.
We need the Bill to provide the money for sensible and much-needed transport improvements. We are not talking about motorway boxes. We need to reduce lead pollution, the number of accidents and general congestion. I do not wish Conservative or SDP Members to vote to prevent much-needed road improvements in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). We are both interested in the North-South route through the Lea Valley to relieve the enormous congestion in Edmonton, Wood Green and North Tottenham. We do not want children contaminated by lead pollution; we do not want road congestion to continue. The Bill is about jobs, transport and housing.
Conservative Members criticise the GLC and the Bill. They accuse the GLC of being a spendthrift and profligate local authority interested only in raising rates for no useful purpose. They say that rate increases drive jobs away. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) put it well; rate rises do affect job preservation and creation. But we must consider other local authority activities and those of the Government.
I suspect that a large number of jobs in London have been lost through the huge interest rate increases as a result of the Government's policy over the past three years. The reply to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on 26 April disclosed that rates were only 0·76 per cent. of industry's total manufacturing costs. To listen to the Conservatives one would think that they were a major cost of production.
I cannot take seriously the argument that the GLC is destroying jobs. Its policy is to reverse the industrial decline, in London, to create jobs, to renew housing and to improve transport. It needs its own money for capital developments, and it needs money from the Government, too. The scandal is that its reasonable and legitimate objectives are blocked at every turn by the Government. They have withdrawn grants from the GLC and ILEA and hounded the reasonable Labour administration at County Hall, which seeks to implement its manifesto in the principled way in which, doubtless, the Government believe that they themselves are seeking to implement their promises.
I commend the Bill to the House. I hope and pray that SDP and Conservative Members will not oppose it. If they do, London's electorate will draw simple conclusions about their attitude to desperately needed improvements in the quality of life in our capital city.

Mr. John Wheeler: The Bill is a source of great worry to my constituents and myself, particularly as the amounts of revenue raised by the precept for the GLC and its committee, the Inner London Education

Authority, are oppressive. The average rate raised in my constituency is about £650 a year, of which at least £460 is accounted for by the GLC and the ILEA committee.
I have examined the substantial budgetary statement of more than 200 pages which has been prepared by the GLC. There are items in it of which I approve and which will be generally welcomed by the people of London. Of course we want to see the Thames barrier completed, because that is in London's interest, but is the administration of the Thames barrier and its finances being carried out efficiently and competently? Should responsibility for the Thames barrier rest with the GLC at all? I maintain that the barrier should be the responsibility of the Thames water authority, which is, after all, the water authority for London.
I am concerned to see evidence of duplication in the budgetary statement in the services that are supposedly supplied by the GLC. Thirty-two London boroughs are concerned with the well-being of the people who live in London. Those are the councils that provide common services such as housing, refuse collection and so on.
It is puzzling to find in the budgetary statement and schedules to the Bill expenditure that is intended for functions that are already carried out in part or in whole by the London borough councils. I refer in particular to traffic regulations, road safety, parking, building regulations and planning. I cannot understand why the House is called upon to approve legislation which is clearly raising revenue to duplicate the work of other local authorities.
My constituents are worried about the fact that the level of the rates obliges many of them to leave their homes and businesses in inner London, and it is up to me and my colleagues in the House to seek to defend their interests.
Much has been made of the so-called Greater London enterprise board. There is no evidence that that board has yet made any substantial loans that would provide real and lasting jobs for the benefit of people in London. Furthermore, the evidence from the City of Westminster Chamber of Commerce—a body which, unfortunately, through its membership raises a substantial part of the rates revenue in London—is that the increasing burden of the rates, which largely come from the GLC, is causing members of the chamber to withdraw their businesses from inner London, with a consequent loss of jobs.
It is unacceptable to allow the Bill to go through the House on the nod, without objection or substantial scrutiny. We are not in a position tonight to inquire into the contents of the Bill or the budgetary statement that has been presented with it and in support of it in sufficient detail to enable us to determine what is acceptable and what is not, both to London Members and their constituents.
However, I have been examining some aspects of the statement and I draw to the attention of the House the statement on page 48 about the police. The GLC says that it will continue to campaign
for the establishment of a police authority for London.
There is a police authority for London already, and it is vested in the Home Secretary, the office holder who has been responsible for the police service in London since it was established in 1829.
The statement tells us also that the council will campaign
for the establishment of an independent procedure for investigating complaints against the police.


It is not the reponsibility of one of London's councils to enter into that activity. The responsibility lies with the House. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has inquired into the subject and reported to the House. I understand that its recommendations are likely to be found in legislation to be brought forward in the new Session. Why is the GLC seeking to raise revenue to spend money on an activity which is not the responsibility or duty of that authority?
There is a reference on page 48 to ethnic minorities. The budgetary statement says:
The council will campaign the advocacy of the repeal of racially discriminatory immigration and nationality laws and practices in the United Kingdom.
That is not the GLC's function. It is the function of this place to determine what Acts of Parliament shall remain on the statute book. It is the duty of the House and not that of the council.
Having examined the statement and a number of items that have been presented to us in the Bill, I am in no doubt that I cannot possibly support the Bill. I shall oppose it later tonight.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I understand that the first Front Bench spokesman would like to begin his reply to the debate at half-past nine. I am anxious to get into the debate every hon. Member who has been rising and trying to catch my eye.

Mr. Thomas Cox: It will be an insult to London if there is an attempt to oppose the Bill or an attempt by any hon. Member to talk it out. As London Members, we all know the problems that exist in London, be they in inner London or outer London.
We know that in London unemployment worsens month by month. There are over 340,000 men and women out of work in London. It is only by the efforts of local authorities, be they local borough authorities or the GLC, that we in London can start to give some hope of employment to those who are, sadly, unemployed. It is by the development of small workshops at a local level that we can start to bring hope into the areas that we represent. When these projects are developed by the GLC in conjunction with local authorities, the result is of benefit to the areas that we represent. That is true irrespective of the party that we may represent, and no one should forget that. We should do all in our power to support those projects at all times.
I warmly welcome and support the expenditure proposed by ILEA. Many parts of inner London will benefit from the various schemes submitted by ILEA and included in the Bill. All London Members, whether from inner or outer London, know that teachers and PTAs constantly ask us to help them to improve their schools. Anyone who attempts in any way to hinder the Bill today should think what the effect of that will be for some areas of London.
Several projects are planned for Wandsworth, by no means all of them in my constituency. ILEA proposes to spend money on the following projects in Wandsworth schools. At Oak Lodge, it plans to provide new radio-based equipment for the deaf. Does any hon. Member oppose that? At the Franciscan school in my constituency, a nursery class is to be provided by the adaptation of

existing classroom accommodation. There is a 65 per cent. deficiency in nursery provision in that area, which I know well. It is an area that cries out for help. For far too many of the youngsters living there the only play facilities are the streets, with all the problems and fears for parents who know that there is nowhere for their youngsters to go but the streets to kick balls and play games.
At Swaffield, Hernville, Eardley and Earlsfield schools, the last two of which are in my constituency, teachers and PTAs have spent years of effort trying to secure decent toilet facilities for the schools. Last winter schools had to be closed because the outside toilets had frozen up. Under the ILEA projects many schools will have indoor toilets for the first time ever.
If any hon. Member says that he does not care a damn about mums and children in Wandsworth and intends to oppose the Bill and do all that he can to block it, heaven help him, because by next week the mums and teachers will know all about it. They will know which Members were responsible and they will be up here in force. It would be an utter disgrace for any Member of Parliament to deprive areas of provisions of that kind after the years of effort put in by those people.
In our occasional debates on London many hon. Members, irrespective of party, have complained about the way in which we have to discuss London matters through debates on GLC Bills. I have no objection to those Bills being debated, but we have to try to bring in as wide a range of topics as we possibly can. Then there are the Consolidated Fund debates, when we stay up until all hours of the night. These are the only opportunities that we have to debate London matters. I criticise successive Governments for this. The Labour Government were just as bad as the Conservatives have been. It is time that we and the usual channels decided that each year one or two days will be allocated for London debates. Hon. Members could then decide, through consultation, which key areas should be debated, and the appropriate Ministers would be present to open and close the debates.
I hope that we shall not hear any more nonsense from hon. Members about whether they oppose the Bill will depend upon the answers that they get. Of course we have different views on many aspects concerning London, but, as London Members, we know about the problems of employment, education, housing, and transport. We debate them time and again. Our first priority is not to obstruct improvements, but to do everything that we can to obtain them. Those improvements may be slow in coming forward, and we may object to that, but let us not have any more of this damned nonsense—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cox: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that we shall not have any more of this nonsense of hon. Members opposing the Bill because there are aspects of it with which they do not agree. It is a disgrace to London and the people of London for any hon. Member to talk in those terms.

Mr. Neil Thorne: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North ',(Mr. Stallard) started his speech by complaining about the need to generate debates or London. I entirely agree. Both parties have been at fault in this respect when in Government and also in


Opposition. The Opposition could devote a Supply Day to a debate on London if they wanted to. That would be helpful.
Some other hon. Members complained about blocking tactics being used on Third Reading. I do not share that view. The Greater London Council, of its own free will, decided that it wished to have the right of a money Bill. It did in fact ask me to sponsor provision for a money Bill in the Committee stage of the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. I am glad to say that the Minister agreed and the GLC now has its money Bill. As always, there are advantages and disadvantages with a money Bill. One cannot take the advantages without the disadvantages. Therefore, hon. Members have every right to raise these issues on Second Reading and also on Third Reading. It is proper that they should.
I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) advance the theory that if one agrees with part of the Bill one must support the whole. That is an erroneous argument. If one disagrees with parts they must be drawn to the promoter's attention so that they can be corrected. It has been pointed out that that has happened in the past and the GLC lost its money Bill, but that was not the end of the world. The Bill was re-presented later. I am sure that as a result due account was taken of the objections and the money Bill was tailored accordingly. That was a proper course of action because such Bills give hon. Members an opportunity to express their opinions.
I have severe reservations about the Bill. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) made an interesting speech. He drew attention to the need for administrative support for the vast sums that will be spent under the Bill. I can well imagine that the extra costs are likely to lead to overspending, and that could affect the GLC's rate support grant. That is a serious matter. I accept that the political parties in the GLC have every right to fight a campaign on the platform of their own choice, and can claim that, having won it, they are entitled to carry out their policy. The present leader was not in control of the Labour Party's campaign when the party won the election—the leadership was subtly changed after the election—nevertheless, the Labour Party has control, but it has to come to this House to have its money Bill approved.
It is right and proper therefore that we should look very carefully at the various aspects of the Bill before we give it our support. The administrative costs are considerable, and if they are likely to lead to a reduction in Government funding which will in turn affect my constituents' rate bills, that is a serious matter. I have no wish to see my constituents deprived of anything because of the behaviour of the GLC and the manner in which it handles its affairs. That is especially so when funds are available to the ratepayers of every authority which is reasonable in its demands. It is therefore, right and proper that we should ask questions about the make-up of the Bill. If we are not satisfied with the answers, we have every right to vote against it.
Some hon. Members made the curious statement that they did not accept that rates were a significant factor in the profitability of a business. That shows how little they know about business. The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) made that very point and he could not be more

wrong. Whereas 20 or 30 years ago the profitability of business was 10, 15 or 20 per cent., it is now more like 3 or 4 per cent. The rate bill may represent only 2 or 3 per cent. of the total bill of a firm, but a 50 per cent. increase in rates can reduce a profitability of 3 per cent. to 2 per cent. or less. It can in consequence put a company entirely into the red and cause considerable unemployment problems. That factor is too often ignored.
With regard to improvements to schools and the other desirable factors mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), Labour Members fail to appreciate the need to cut one's coat according to one's cloth. Whereas we would all agree that improved facilities for schools and many other worthy causes are desirable, nevertheless we may vary in our views as to when we can afford to put them into effect. If we feel that we cannot afford to put them into effect now because by so doing we may increase unemployment, we have a right to ask and expect the people concerned to adopt a more reasonble approach and to postpone their desires for the immediate future. In that respect I have severe reservations about the Bill, and unless I can be assured that employment prospects will not be harmed by any reduction in Government support arising out of profligate expenditure by the GLC, I shall wish to register my opposition and to vote against the Bill.

Mr. John Grant: I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), and repeated by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), about the general undesirability of this procedure. I shall continue to say that until the alliance is in power at County Hall and at Westminster, when I hope that something will be done about it.
I wish to concentrate on the single issue of the spending earmarked in the Bill for employment in industry and in particular on the Greater London enterprise board. I recognise, like all hon. Members, the appalling unemployment situation in London. My constituency in the London borough of Islington is one of the worst hit. It is one of the major unemployment blackspots in inner London. Next week's unemployment figures for the nation in general and London in particular will probably reach a record level. The grim economic and social problems facing so many inner cities certainly prevail in our capital city.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) and other Labour Members have made it clear that they see the Greater London enterprise board as a positive step in reducing London's grave unemployment problem. I do not quarrel with the aims and objectives of those hon. Members. Conservative Members are not in a position to criticise, when the Government have done so much to create the jobs crisis in London and elsewhere. It would be foolish to dismiss the Greater London enterprise board as a potentially useful vehicle for job creation. I am not opposed in principle, but I have serious misgivings about what has occurred in practice.
If hon. Members are to act as public watchdogs when measures like this Bill come before the House, it is right that such misgivings should be aired. If the muddled thinking, the equivocation and, I think one can say, the maladministration that has taken place at County Hall in respect of the enterprise board had occurred in a private company, the shareholders would have been in revolt and the employees, through their unions, would have been up


in arms. Someone had better get a firm and rapid grip—it may possibly have to be a political grip—on the Greater London enterprise board. Otherwise, there will be every justification for a ratepayers' revolt.
If the objective of this admittedly still embryonic board is job creation, one has to say that the only success it seems to have achieved so far is to create a lavishly expensive position for Mr. McGarvey as the chief executive. He came as second choice following the strange one-off affair with Mr. Cunningham, never properly explained, who apparently took off again almost as soon as he touched down at County Hall, because he could not stomach what he found. Mr. Garvey has, of course, the right political pedigree. I do not complain about that if he is up to the job. Nor do I want jobs of this kind done on the cheap. "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
There is still uncertainty about how much Mr. McGarvey will cost. There is the figure of £35,000 for salary. When one adds the perks, the figure floating around is £72,000. I am not sure whether that is the correct figure. Whatever it is, he is the highest paid GLC official. I should have thought that there was room for a rather more modest starting salary, with an element of payment by results introduced to the position.
It is ironic that Labour Members who flood to sign motions on behalf of poorly paid workers such as nurses—I agree with that assessment—and who compare their rises with those of judges and admirals, do not appear to see anything wrong with this salary. The GLC is now advertising jobs under Mr. McGarvey. Some of the salaries are £24,000 a year basic. I do not know what additional perks might be possible. The intermediate staffing arrangements for the board will cost well over £1 million in a full year. If that is peanuts, I can only say that the GLC has some of the highest-paid monkeys in captivity.
I understand that the council is to expand its economic policy unit staff at a cost of another cool £500,000 a year. I find it hard to believe that all this empire building will not result in a considerable overlapping and duplication of effort of a kind that the GLC is on record as condemning.
I wish now to deal with a specific matter that concerns me, related to my own borough of Islington. I refer to an interesting document which has been drawn up by three of the borough's most senior officials, headed "Greater London Enterprise Board—Islington Bid." The document points out that officers from Islington council met a team of officers from the GLC to discuss the submission of
a package of schemes costing up to £5 million in 1982–83 for consideration by the Greater London Enterprise Board. At the time the GLC officers gave the impression that the GLEB was well towards being established, with consultants on tap to provide support services as required, and that only minimal assistance would be needed from the boroughs staff. The GLC officers requested that the package should emphasise any major industrial or mixed industrial/commercial development projects which could be started this year even if such schemes were not strictly feasible economically. The council's officers accordingly submitted a package of schemes.
The package totals more than £2 million for 1982–83 and nearly £4 million for future years. Thus, the cost of the schemes proposed amounts to £6 million.
The report goes into great detail about cost indications. It continues:
Having submitted the bid the Council's officers were advised that there had been a change of thinking at County Hall about how the GLEB was to operate. Mr. Cunningham had declined

to accept the position as chairman/chief executive of GLEB because of a difference of opinion on how GLEB should operate.
The assistant director, whom the council had met, was no longer leading the GLC team, and the report goes on to say:
A second meeting was therefore held with GLC officers, who outlined a significantly different position from that presented at the first meeting. GLC thinking, at least for the first year of GLEB's operation, is to concentrate resources into existing large and medium size firms to create employment. This will leave some £5 million for area and property development for the whole of Greater London.
Yet Islington had been advised to put in a bid of nearly £6 million for that borough alone.
The report continues:
GLEB has no staff in post, no consultants ready to advise and its effectiveness in the current year is therefore in doubt. In effect the GLC are looking to the Council to provide the staff resources to support GLEB in the current year on the feasibility and marketing studies which would be required.
In addition the GLC officers made it quite clear that they are now looking for schemes from the boroughs which are virtually ready to start with the majority of expenditure in the current year and either no or only a minor commitment to future years … unless the GLC's approach to GLEB expenditure this year changes it is unlikely that this borough will obtain any significant benefit in 1982–83.
That is a fine mess. Islington borough was led up the garden. Clearly a political change of course was imposed on officials by those responsible at County Hall. That time-wasting exercise cost the borough staff time and resources, a cost that is then footed by the ratepayers.
The unemployed people of my borough have been left waiting because of a failure to act when they should have been assisted. Islington is only one London borough. I wonder how many other London boroughs worked out similar packages on the advice of the GLC to put to the Greater London enterprise board, only to have their hopes dashed by the political bungling and indecision at County Hall. I wonder how much time, paper and cash have been wasted by officials in all those boroughs as well as at County Hall. Ratepayers' money was squandered unnecessarily. That bungling could well provide an omnibus case of maladministration for the consideration of the local government ombudsman.
Whether or not that matter merits such investigation, it inspires little confidence that those who are in control at County Hall are capable of adequately safeguarding London's cash, running London's affairs efficiently and effectively or having, the know-how or the political will to create the necessary jobs in our city's ailing industry. It also illustrates the difficulty of discovering what the Greater London enterprise board will do, or be told to do, to meet the uncertain and changing requirements of its political masters. There are still some sensible people in the Labour group at County Hall, but they are in a minority. A crackpot leadership now controls the purse strings and that is why I am so worried about the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Ted Graham: We have had a good and largely even-tempered debate tonight. Normally the Third Reading of such a Bill does not cause much controversy. Most hon. Members have demonstrated tonight that the Bill is crucial to the welfare of London. I underscore all that has been said by members of the Labour Party, who are appalled at the possibility that the Bill will be opposed or obstructed.
That does not mean that I believe that we should not criticise what is contained in the Bill or the motives, intentions, competence and political nous of those who may be responsible for it. However, there is a world of difference between raising reservations and pointing out criticisms and taking those criticisms to such a length that one wishes to flout the will, not merely of Labour Members, but of the leaders of the GLC and Ministers, who have held discussions to ensure that the package is considered by all to be moderate and reasonable.
The GLC and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), the promoter of the Bill, have shown courtesy and respect for the conventions of the House and for London as a whole. With such a political dimension, it is impossible to find other than diametrically opposed political philosophies enmeshed in what could be, on another occasion, a prosaic list of projects. It is sad that some hon. Members have threatened—I hope that the threats will not be fulfilled—to delay the Bill.
The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) repeated that this should not be the way in which London's capital requirements are treated in the House. He and others, including myself, have some responsibility to initiate discussions on whether that is a general view not only of parliamentarians but of members of the GLC. We should spend a little time outside the openness of debates in the House to see how that can be done. However, it was sad that the hon. Gentleman injected some bile and rancour into his remarks that spoiled an otherwise reasonable contribution. These days, Conservative Members cannot discuss London without personalising everything. The hon. Gentleman above all hon. Members should know that we are dealing not with revenue but capital matters. It is fair enough to want to know the revenue consequences of capital provisions, but the hon. Gentleman's contribution was not worthy of his usual contributions in debates on London.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is not in his place. I greatly respect his background in teaching and education. However, together with other hon. Members, he is carrying on a vendetta against the leadership of the GLC and that shone through in his speech. The hon. Gentleman said that ultimately he had to consider the interests of his constituents. Of course, we all consider our constituents' interests, but the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number should prevail. He was right to make a valid constituency point about transport and to refer to the apparent change of heart or volte face on the part of some individuals at the GLC. It is right to air such points, but it would not merit opposing and perhaps delaying the Bill.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North also referred to the GLC and London Transport. We all know that the funding and future of London Transport are important. The problem will not go away and it must be resolved. However, the hon. Gentleman was less than fair when he forgot recent history. The Secretary of State invited the GLC to put forward proposals on future funding and management. As every hon. Member knows, the GLC took the trouble of preparing a paper, which has been presented to the Secretary of State. It contains such options as a return to the "Fares Fair" policy, no growth, cash limits and a return to the position before March 1982. The

GLC points out that the Government's treatment of transport provision in the capital deserved consultation and discussion at the highest level.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) spoke for about 27 minutes and it was probably the longest speech of the evening. I respect his great experience of local government. He was right to say that if the Bill is lost tonight the next step will be to renegotiate a more acceptable measure. However, I blanch at the thought of the hiatus that will be caused at County Hall and in every town hall in London if the measure is delayed.
The Opposition are neither sanguine nor uncaring about whether the Bill is enacted. The will of the House will prevail. However, I shall echo the comments made by several hon. Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches. London and Londoners will not forgive or forget any hon. Member who professes to represent London's best interests if by his vote or voice tonight he hinders the Bill's passage.
I much enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). His usual passionate and eloquent speech not only on behalf of his constituents, but also on behalf of London demonstrated his deep knowledge of such affairs. With justification he warned what would befall Conservative Members who threatened London and Londoners with the consequences of the withdrawal of their support. The hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) brought to the debate his knowledge of the employment scene and dealt mainly with the enterprise board. We await the progress of the board with as much interest as he.
One can look across Westminster Bridge and see evidence to the effect that 344,000 Londoners are unemployed. The hon. Member for Islington, Central predicted that that figure will show an increase next Tuesday. Any initiative by the GLC designed to reduce the number of unemployed should be given a fair wind.
We are mindful that the Bill is a set piece in London's Government. The House has a job to do tonight—to allow the Bill to pass so that Londoners are allowed to get on with the standard of living to which they are entitled. Londoners can stand on their own feet. Hon. Members have said that Londoners should have a better deal. I do not cavil at the use of strong language, but those who try to damage the ability of the GLC to give London effective Government do a disservice to democracy. We have had enough of the Secretary of State with his constant interfering in the ability of locally elected men and women to govern their region. The Bill is modest, constructive and needed by Londoners.
The House should endorse the programme of works requested. London Members have a responsibility and duty to forget their petty partisan sniping. I give the Bill a warm welcome on behalf of the official Opposition.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): As a Yorkshire man I am conscious that I am alien to a debate on London. I feel a little like the cavalry in war, adding tone to what otherwise would be a vulgar brawl. The House will understand that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), has a major and prior engagement this evening, and I have come to the Box in his stead. I apologise to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) for the fact that the letter sent to


him by my colleague reached him via Leith in Scotland and not directly. On reading the letter the hon. Member will no doubt believe—unlike George III who said that no good ever came out of Scotland—that at least he has some good news.
The Bill is a well-established procedure. It has been criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House and that should be taken into account. The GLC operates under the London Government Act 1963. When new controls on capital expenditure by local authorities were introduced by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the GLC was keen to retain its unique procedure. The previous arrangements have been modified, partly in the 1980 Act and partly through understanding between the Government and the GLC. In spite of retaining the Bill procedure, the GLC is in practice under a regime as similar as possible to that applying to other authorities. Hon. Members will know that there are debates from time to time on rate support grant orders and matters of that kind, which deal with capital spend and capital provisions of local authorities elsewhere.
We explained on Second Reading that the provisions in the Bill are, in practice, agreed by the various interested Departments in consultation with the GLC before the Bill is deposited. The Government have no objection in principle to the proposals. However, some of my hon. Friends have suggested that the Bill is objectionable because of its provision for a number of matters, such as assistance for industry. There was also the question of support for artistic groups which my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) raised. There were also certain other aspects of how the money should be spent, which did not attract my hon. Friend's support.
The Government have, to the extent that it is possible, satisfied themselves about the level of provision for capital expenditure in total in the Bill. That provision is based on the capital expenditure allocation made to the council, as to all other local authorities last December, allowing for the use of capital receipts. After the original draft of the Bill had been seen in my Department, there were discussions and substantial modifications. About £40 million-worth of modifications were made, which shows that the Bill and its content have been substantially examined as to the capital.
The GLC, if it secures passage of the Bill tonight, can direct these resources to other activities and away from the services where the Government believe the need to be greatest. This is where other difficulties could arise, but, as far as the Bill's passage tonight is concerned, the principles of the capital spend and the capital allocation that it contains have been discussed and are broadly satisfactory to the Government.
However, I have noted what my hon. Friends have said about the behaviour of the existing administration at County Hall. The results of the disastrous "Fares Fair" policy on London Transport are still with us. It has set up, for some extraordinary reason, a police committee, although it has no responsibility for police matters. Daily we hear, and this evening we heard from the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), of new posts that have precious little to do with a body that was elected to look after specific local government services in Greater London.
The GLC cannot strike a posture as the nation's conscience in these matters. All of these activities no doubt contribute to its record as a notorious overspender.

For the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) to suggest that there is no relationship between the level of rates and the difficulties facing industries, large and small, in Greater London shows an appalling lack of knowledge of the case.

Mr. Race: The Minister should read Hansard tomorrow because he will see that that was not what I said. I agreed with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) that there was a relationship between rate rises and job preservation and destruction. However, other factors overlay that and are much more significant. Primarily, that meant the real cost of production for industry, particularly the cost of capital and raw materials. I referred to the parliamentary question and answer which his ministerial colleague gave on 26 April to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).

Mr. Shaw: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views on this matter, but he gave the impression that he was seeking to dismiss the consequence of the rate increases on the capacity of industry to survive and continue to employ people. He is wrong to be dismissive and many a small business has been forced out of operating in Greater London because of the extremely high rate rises. My hon. Friends will be aware of the substantial differences between Conservative-controlled boroughs and most other places when it comes to the level of rates. In inner London Conservative local rates are less than half those charged by Labour authorities. In outer London Conservative local rates are less than two thirds of Labour local rates. In terms of weekly cash outgoings, a typical household with a domestic rateable value of £300 will pay £7 per week in a Conservative borough and £10 a week in a Labour borough. We have discussed those matters previously in the House. It is not right that the Bill should be allowed to proceed without recognising that the absolute level of rates is a major deterrent to industry and employment.

Mr. Graham: Will the Minister take note of what the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry said in a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier this year? It said:
Those areas where assistance would prove most effective are:—

interest rates
increased capital spending
reductions in the National Insurance Surcharge and energy costs".

Does the Minister agree that, whatever effect increases in rates might have, the Government have, if not the same, at least a greater share of responsibility for any problems facing industry?

Mr. Shaw: Everyone understands that industry's costs in every quarter have risen sharply. Everyone recognises that rates have risen very sharply. When rates or other costs are rising and when an industry's prospects are falling, there is no doubt that profit levels are reduced to a point where the, industry is rendered non-viable.
In the Bill, we are dealing with the provision of capital allocation to the GLC. The House must contend with it under the existing procedures. I recognise the criticisms that have been made, but I fear that it is not for us at this juncture to suggest that the GLC should not be entitled to obtain approval for its money Bill from the Government.
I sympathise with my hon. Friends, who rightly see in the Bill expenditure being laid out for matters that they and


their constituents find unacceptable, but the fact is that the government of Greater London must continue. Therefore, the Bill must find its way through the House. I would not say that I have the privilege, even the enthusiasm or the utter conviction in the bottom of my soul, but at least I have the duty to see that the Bill proceeds through the House.

Mr. Stallard: I shall reply to some of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to hon. Members for keeping their contributions brief so that I can reply, unlike the Second Reading debate, when I had less than a minute to reply to a welter of questions.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), I believe that the debate has been excellent. Of course there have been differences. That is what London debates are about. The majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to be constructive, not destructive. One or two have been destructive, but by and large any criticism, some of which was about the revenue estimates, has been justified.
The most difficult aspect of my reply is that most of the points made were not relevant to the debate, which was more like another Second Reading debate than a Third Reading debate on capital estimates. There is a vast difference between capital and revenue estimates. Most hon. Members with local government experience understand that, but many points raised even by those hon. Members were about revenue estimates. Therefore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to reply.
An hon. Member may say: "If I do not get a reasonable reply from the promoter of the Bill on the detailed points that I have made on the revenue estimates, over which he has no control, I shall not vote for the capital estimates", but that does not make sense in any assembly with the expertise that we have. That is not fair. It is an excuse for hon. Members to make mischief and join some of the other mischief makers who are intent on that course. However, that is not a valid reason for withholding their votes.
Most of the comments were irrelevant to the capital estimates. The women's committee, the ethnic committee and the police committee were just areas for criticism, but none concerned the capital budget. Therefore, they should not have been included in tonight's Third Reading debate on the capital estimates. It is disconcerting and a little sharp to say "Unless I am given a satisfactory answer about the police committee, the women's committee or the ethnic committee, I will not vote for the capital estimates." That is not how we should conduct London's affairs.
There were some relevant criticisms. The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), who asked about recreation and the arts, is entitled to a reply, because that is an item in the schedule. There is no provision in the item for revenue arts grants to which the hon. Member referred. However, there is a breakdown. We have parks, £3·4 million; national sports centre, £500,000; concert halls—the Festival Hall and so on—£500,000; canal paths £700,000; museums £200,000; the Thamesmead open space—a fairly large expenditure—£1·2 million. That is a total of £6,488,000 in the estimates.
Other items about which we may have complaints are on the revenue estimates and therefore are not specifically relevant to this part.
Transport was mentioned, although it is not entirely relevant. We have had separate discussions on the London Transport budget, and I am sure there will be more. I was surprised to hear the Minister refer to the "disastrous" "Fares Fair" policy, and he went on to echo the chorus from the Conservative Benches. It is relevant for me to say to him that the chairman of the London Transport Executive—he is certainly not a member of the Opposition—in a statement only recently issued, said:
Thus, for the first time for about 20 years, a steady decline in the use by passengers of public transport services in London was halted and reversed, in spite of the continuing growth in the ownership of private cars and a declining population of the capital city. Accompanying the reduction in fares and the consequent increase in travel by public transport, there was a small but significant reduction in the use of private cars in central London, a reduction in traffic congestion and undoubtedly a reduction in road accidents. These beneficial results went some way towards offsetting the increased cost to ratepayers while employers and businesses in central London benefited from cheaper and more effective public transport.
I did not write that. It was written by the chairman of the London Transport Executive. It more than adequately answers the criticisms of the "Fares Fair" policy which were raised in a partisan fashion both tonight and in previous debates.
A perfectly reasonable point was made about home loans to individuals and to housing associations, to which I tried to give a brief reply. I have had another look at the estimates.
We expect the home loans provisions of the GLC both to individuals and to housing associations to be restricted because of the general cuts due to Government restrictions, but they are still available for the sale of properties taken into possession for homesteading, for repairs and improvements in housing action areas and for repairs to properties already on mortgage. Who will oppose that outside the democratic element of the SDP-Liberal alliance? Those were the most relevant points on the capital estimates. It is a shame that the other points mentioned were not to do with tonight's debate.
Much of the criticism of the enterprise board centred around the salaries and wages, which, again, are not a part of the capital estimates. It is reasonable for hon. Members to criticise the fact, but they should choose the right vehicle. The Third Reading of the Bill is not the right time seriously to criticise the enterprise board. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton said, any attempt to reduce the total of 344,000 unemployed is welcome. I hope that the Bill will be read the Third time.

Mr. Wellbeloved: rose—

Mr. Spearing: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Main Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

DEFENCE

Resolved,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES

That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Ten o'clock.